Opposing-Counsel Playbook: VERNA LILBURN

Firm Juris No. 404223 · Connecticut · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

Limited sample (25 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 motion-aggressive firm concentrated in New Haven that wins most of what it files. The sample is small, so treat the rates as direction, not destiny. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the patterns below describe where that volume tends to concentrate.

How they litigate (the style)

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

• 7.16 discovery motions per case (179 total) — discovery is the main battlefield by a wide margin. The motion-to-compel count alone (20) tells the story: the process becomes expensive and time-consuming well before the merits are reached.
• 1.92 counsel-fee requests per case (48 mentions) — they routinely put fee-shifting in play. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is where the cost pressure concentrates.
• 1.16 contempt motions per case (29 total, plus 18 motions for contempt pendente lite in the motion mix) — contempt appears as a working tool rather than a last resort. Allegations of order violations are a recurring feature of this firm's docket.

Add 1.76 continuances per case (44) and the full picture emerges: a stretched timeline, sustained discovery and contempt activity, and ongoing fee exposure across the life of the case.

The filing barrage — and who gets it worst

Across all cases, this firm's side puts 36.72 filings on the docket per case — a heavy paper load for a contested family case. And the volume is not evenly distributed:

• Represented opponents draw more paper than pro-se ones. Against a represented opponent: 42.24 filings/case. Against a pro-se opponent: 25.0/case. That cuts the opposite way from many attrition shops — but 25 filings against an unrepresented spouse is still a substantial load for someone without a lawyer.
• The heaviest barrages on record (represented opponents): GAO, ZIYI v. CHEN, MINHUI (NNH-FA24-5060648-S) — 149 filings (the firm's all-time high in this sample); HALLORAN, MARTINA v. JOSEPH, J. STEPHEN (NNH-FA19-6096780-S) — 84; SCHMIDT, CAROLINE v. SCHMIDT, JR, DAVID (NNH-FA23-6129219-S) — 79; NETHERLAND, NICOLE v. NETHERLAND, JAMES (NNH-FA23-6129573-S) — 71.
• Against a self-represented opponent specifically: DWYER, MOLLIE, P v. BROWN, DOMINIQUE (NNH-FA17-5038608-S) — 50 filings, opponent pro se; APICELLA, DONNA v. APICELLA, VINCENT (NNH-FA19-6091802-S) — 37 filings, opponent pro se. Dozens of filings appear on the docket in cases where the opposing party had no attorney.

For a self-represented party, the raw filing count tends to be lower than it would be against a lawyer — but it remains substantial. The section below describes the procedural tools and rules that bear on exactly that asymmetry.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in only 8% of their cases (2 of 25) — low, and consistent with a discovery-and-money-driven practice rather than a custody-evaluation-driven one. The firm moves for GAL appointment rarely (gal_appointment marker rate 0.24/case).
• No reportable pattern of repeat guardian-ad-litem pairings emerges from this sample.

Context: when a GAL is appointed, the appointment order can define the scope, budget, and reporting deadline of the engagement. An appointment order that leaves those terms open is, by its nature, an open-ended cost and an open-ended variable — a consideration that interacts with this firm's discovery-and-cost posture.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Christopher Griffin (23) more than any other judge, then Grossman (14), Goodrow (10), Klau (10), and Spader (10) — a tight New Haven rotation. Their grant rate reflects, in part, familiarity: repeated appearances mean familiarity with each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. A party who reviews the assigned judge's standing orders has access to the same baseline information.

What to expect — and your procedural options

Against a 10-motions-per-case firm, the dynamics tend to play out on the firm's chosen ground: discovery, contempt, fees, and the calendar. The items below describe what each pattern is and what procedural tools and rules the Connecticut framework provides in response — as information, not as a recommendation about any case.

1. The discovery dynamic. At 7.16 discovery motions per case, discovery is this firm's primary area of activity. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; a documented record of timely responses goes to which party is compliant. Where discovery demands exceed what the rules allow, a focused objection or a motion for protective order is the procedural tool a party may use to narrow them.

1. The contempt dynamic. With 1.16 contempt motions per case (and 18 contempt motions pendente lite in the mix), contempt activity is common on this firm's docket. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the record that bears on a contempt motion; a contempt motion that is not supported by the documents is one a court can deny.

1. The fee dynamic. With 1.92 fee requests per case, fee-shifting is a recurring part of this firm's practice. In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). Motion volume and continuances are themselves part of the litigation-conduct record that a court may consider on a fee question.

1. The calendar dynamic. They average 1.76 continuances per case, which has the effect of stretching timelines. Continuances can be opposed on the record. A Motion to Advance is the procedural tool a party may use to ask the court to hear a matter sooner.

1. The volume dynamic. At 36.72 filings per case (and 42.24 against represented opponents), the docket itself is a feature of this firm's practice. Filing volume and filing discipline are independent of each other; the number of filings a party makes is a separate question from the substance and clarity of each one.

1. Process versus merits. This firm's model concentrates activity on the process of a case. The 72% grant rate is computed on a small decided-motion sample (50 motions) — it is indicative, not a guarantee. The substantive questions in a family case (custody, support, division) are decided on their own record, separate from the volume of procedural filings.

Methodology & limits

Computed from public CT Judicial Branch docket entries and party rosters (parties → filing-side attribution → motion/outcome tally). "Grant 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, and the decided-motion sample here is small (50 motions) — treat the rate as indicative, not definitive. 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.