Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Vasiliki P Filippakos

Firm Juris No. 427180 · Danbury, CT · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

Limited sample (44 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

Bottom line: a Danbury-focused solo with a discovery-forward style and a high reported success rate on a small decided-motion sample. The defining features of this profile are focus, the record, and procedure — and the discovery activity that is concentrated in their home district.

Note on the win rate: it is computed on a small set of decided motions (55) inside a 44-case sample. Read it as suggestive of effectiveness, not as a reliable percentage.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is discovery pressure plus fee leverage. Three numbers define them:

• 3.0 discovery motions per case (132 total) — discovery is where this firm concentrates its activity. Motions to compel (13 filed) and a steady stream of discovery-related practice make the process a focal point well before the merits.
• 1.52 counsel-fee mentions per case (67 total) — they routinely raise fees. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is a notable feature of the record: litigating against them can carry a cost-shifting question.
• ~0.98 continuances per case (43 total; 42 Motions for Continuance) — the timeline tends to stretch, with discovery activity continuing throughout.

Add 0.68 contempt motions per case (30 total) and 0.68 GAL-appointment markers per case (30) and the full picture emerges: sustained discovery activity, fees raised regularly, and contempt and GAL markers that appear when custody is in play.

The filing barrage — and where it concentrates

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~20.9 filings on the docket per case (920 filings over 44 cases). The volume is not evenly distributed:

• They file more against represented opponents than against the self-represented. Against a represented opponent: 22.3 filings/case. Against a pro-se opponent: 18.0 filings/case. The heavier paper appears where there is a lawyer on the other side to answer it.
• The heaviest barrages on record: Sanidas v. Kouroupas (FBT-FA20-6101492-S) — 62 filings (the firm's all-time high); Clarke v. Clarke (DBD-FA10-4011940-S) — 49; Sherwood v. Erickson (DBD-FA22-6042723-S) — 45 (opponent pro se).
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Sherwood v. Erickson (DBD-FA22-6042723-S) — 45 filings; Gatto/Zaborowski v. Zaborowski (DBD-FA24-6052601-S) — 39; Toledo v. Toledo (DBD-FA22-5018039-S) — 24. A self-represented opponent can still appear opposite dozens of filings.

A lighter raw filing count against a self-represented party does not necessarily indicate a lighter overall posture — the discovery and fee patterns described above appear regardless of the raw filing count.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in 6.8% of their cases (3 of 44) — a low rate, so GAL involvement is the exception, not the norm. That said, GAL-appointment activity shows up far more often as a marker (30 mentions across the caseload), meaning the topic of a GAL surfaces in custody fights even when one is not ultimately seated.
• The data does not show a recurring, identifiable GAL pairing for this firm — there is no small repeat set of the same guardians ad litem to flag here. Any proposed GAL stands on its own.

Context: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with this firm are a matter of public record that can be researched. Appointment orders can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline at the outset; an unscoped GAL represents an open-ended cost and an open-ended risk.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Joseph Vizcarrondo (19) most, then Hon. Heidi Winslow (17) and Hon. Daniel Fox (14), with Truglia, Marano, and Figueroa Laskos behind them. The concentration in Danbury means familiarity with each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. A self-represented opponent who learns the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice narrows that familiarity gap.

What to expect — and your procedural options

For a discovery-forward firm, the patterns above each have a corresponding set of procedural rules and tools that exist in CT family practice. The following is descriptive information about those patterns and the tools that relate to them — not a recommendation about any specific case.

1. The discovery pattern. At 3.0 discovery motions per case, discovery is the area of greatest activity. A common basis for a sanctions or compel motion is non-compliance with discovery; responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions. A targeted objection is the procedural vehicle for contesting an over-broad demand. A complete, documented response record is what shows a party as the compliant one, which also bears on the fee question.

1. The fee-leverage pattern. With ~1.5 counsel-fee mentions per case, fees recur on the record. Connecticut fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). Litigation conduct — including motion volume and continuances — is part of what a court may consider when fee awards are at issue; the docket documents that conduct on both sides.

1. The continuance pattern. Continuances are their most-filed motion (42; ~0.98/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 is something the moving party must justify.

1. The contempt and post-judgment pattern. Contempt motions appear across the caseload (30 markers; 8 post-judgment). Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the evidentiary record against which a contempt motion is measured. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents tends to fail on the record.

1. The GAL pattern. GALs are rare in these cases (6.8%), but GAL discussion surfaces in custody fights. Appointment orders can specify a written scope, budget, and deadline, and a proposed GAL's prior pairings are publicly researchable.

1. The volume pattern overall. This firm's volume is its defining feature, and it is concentrated in discovery and continuance practice. A short, clean, merits-focused record is the structural alternative to a volume-driven one; the substantive questions (custody, support, division) are what a court ultimately decides.

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; many entries record no outcome and are excluded. 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.