Opposing-Counsel Playbook: The Law Offices of Keith Anthony LLC
Firm Juris No. 441447 · Connecticut · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records
Limited sample (27 contested cases) — treat rates as indicative, not definitive.
What this is. A data-driven scouting report on how this firm litigates contested divorce and custody cases. Every number below is computed from the firm's own filing history across the public CT family-court docket. This is a litigation-pattern analysis of public records — not legal advice, and not a claim about any individual case. Patterns describe tendencies, not guarantees.
This is general information about public litigation patterns — not legal advice, and not a recommendation about what to do in any specific case.
Snapshot
| Metric | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Contested cases (as P/D counsel) | 27 | A smaller, regionally concentrated practice |
| Home turf | New London/Norwich (KNO): 22, then New Haven (NNH: 4), Torrington (AAN: 1) | Eastern Connecticut — KNO is overwhelmingly their court |
| Side they take | 17 plaintiff / 10 defendant | Files first more often than not — leans toward setting the agenda |
| Motions per case | 2.0 | A measured motion pace; the real volume is in the broader filing count |
| Contested-motion win rate | Not reported | Only 7 decided motions on record — too small a sample to state a meaningful rate |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Cecil Thomas (3), then Necci (2), Grasso Egan (2) | Spreads across the KNO/NNH bench; no single dominant judge |
Bottom line: a one-attorney, eastern-Connecticut shop whose pressure shows up less in raw motion counts than in steady docket volume — and whose paper load runs heaviest in a handful of high-intensity cases. This firm's volume, applied case by case, is its defining feature.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is discovery pressure plus fee leverage, applied case by case. Three rates define them:
- 1.22 discovery-motion markers per case (33 total) — discovery is the most frequent pressure point in the firm's docket activity. The pattern is to make the process demanding before the merits are ever reached.
- 0.82 counsel-fee markers per case (22 total) — fee requests recur across most cases. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is a cost lever: continued litigation can carry expense.
- 0.52 continuance markers per case (14 total), alongside 0.48 GAL-appointment markers per case (13 total) — the firm influences the schedule with continuances and reaches for a GAL in roughly half its cases, which brings a third decision-maker into custody matters.
Contempt, by contrast, is rare here (3 total, 0.11 per case) — this is not a contempt-first practice. The pressure is built on discovery, fees, timing, and GAL involvement.
The filing volume — and where it concentrates
Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~11.85 filings on the docket per case. The volume is not evenly distributed:
- Represented opponents draw more paper than self-represented ones here. Against a represented opponent: 12.86 filings/case. Against a pro-se opponent: 10.77/case. That is the reverse of the pattern seen at some high-volume firms — but a self-represented spouse still faces nearly eleven filings per case with no lawyer to absorb them.
- The heaviest filing volumes on record: Parish v. Parish (KNO-FA24-6110549-S) — 30 filings, the firm's all-time high; Slubowski v. Slubowski (NNH-FA17-6068190-S) — 28 filings; Lallier v. Cortino (KNO-FA22-5110971-S) — 22 filings, opponent pro se; Sexton v. Lowe (KNO-FA25-6110838-S) — 22 filings, opponent pro se.
Two of the firm's four heaviest-ever case files involved unrepresented opponents. For a self-represented party, the docket volume itself is the feature most worth understanding in advance — the section below describes the procedural options that correspond to each pattern.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Orders Before Judgment — Pendente Lite | 16 | Sets the temporary-orders agenda early |
| Motion for Continuance | 12 | Influences the schedule |
| Objection | 3 | Blocks or slows the other side's requests |
| Motion for Contempt Pendente Lite | 2 | Puts the opponent on defense during the case |
| Motion to Dismiss | 2 | Tests the pleadings / procedural footing |
| Motion for Counsel Fees | 2 | Fee leverage |
| Motion for Extension of Time | 2 | Buys room on deadlines |
| Motion for Appointment of GAL | 1 | Brings a third decision-maker into custody fights |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in 14.8% of their cases (4 of 27), and GAL-appointment markers show up at 0.48 per case — the firm reaches toward GAL involvement as a custody lever in a meaningful share of its files.
- The data does not support naming any recurring guardian-ad-litem pairing for this firm.
Procedural note: when a GAL is proposed, the appointment order is the document that defines scope, budget, and any reporting deadline. An unscoped GAL appointment is an open-ended cost and an open-ended risk; those terms are typically addressed in the order itself.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Cecil Thomas (3 rulings) most often, then Hon. Matthew Necci (2) and Hon. Lisa Grasso Egan (2), with single appearances before Figueroa Laskos, Connors, Dembo, and Nastri. There is no dominant home judge here — the firm spreads across the eastern Connecticut bench. The assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice are public and case-specific.
What to expect — and your procedural options
This firm's pattern centers on discovery and fee pressure applied case by case. The items below describe what each pattern is and the procedural tools that correspond to it — as information, not as a recommendation for any specific case.
- Discovery. The firm's most frequent pressure point is discovery (1.22 discovery markers per case). Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; documented responses establish a compliance record. Where requests exceed what the rules allow, a targeted objection or a protective order is the procedural tool that addresses over-broad demands.
- Counsel fees. Fee requests recur in most of their cases (0.82 per case). Connecticut fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's own documentation of filing volume and continuances is part of the litigation-conduct record the statute references.
- The schedule. Continuances run at 0.52 per case. A Motion to Advance is the procedural tool a party may use to ask the court to hear a matter sooner; continuances can be opposed on the record. Each continuance request is a point at which the moving party states its justification.
- Pendente-lite orders. Their top motion is the Motion for Orders Before Judgment — Pendente Lite (16 on record). Temporary orders set the tone of the whole case. A documented counter-proposal at the PL hearing is how the early agenda is contested on the record.
- GAL appointments. A GAL surfaces in roughly one in seven of their cases (14.8%). When one is proposed, the appointment order is where written scope, budget, and reporting deadline are typically set.
- Filing volume. At ~11.85 filings per case, this firm's volume is its defining feature. A short, merits-focused record is the structural alternative to matching that volume; the substantive questions in a family case (custody, support, division) are decided on the merits regardless of filing count.
Methodology & limits
Computed from public CT Judicial Branch docket entries and party rosters (parties → filing-side attribution → motion/outcome tally). "Win rate" = Granted ÷ (Granted + Denied) on the firm's own filed motions where the docket records an outcome; here the decided-motion sample is too small to report a rate. Marker counts use keyword matching on docket event descriptions and may include related sub-types. Firm-name aggregation follows the docket's recorded firm name (the source truncates long names). Patterns reflect aggregate history, not the conduct of any one attorney or the merits of any one case.