Opposing-Counsel Playbook: William James Neary

Firm Juris No. 412612 · Connecticut · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

Limited sample (46 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 single-attorney shop that nonetheless runs a high-volume, motion-driven case. This firm's volume is its defining feature. The record reflects a focus on procedure and a small-sample track record that may not be as deep as the raw grant rate suggests.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is discovery activity + calendar management + contempt filings. Three numbers define them:

• 2.89 discovery motions per case (133 total) — discovery is where most of the activity occurs. The pattern is one in which the process itself carries significant cost before the merits are reached. For an under-resourced opponent, that asymmetry is pronounced.
• 2.17 continuances per case (100 total) — the calendar is a recurring focus. Timelines stretch, costs accumulate over time, and pressure tends to fall hardest on the side that most needs resolution.
• 0.89 contempt motions per case (41 total — including 22 post-judgment) — contempt is a routine filing for this firm rather than a rare one. Allegations of order violations appear on the docket, and often relatively early in a matter.

Add 0.83 counsel-fee requests per case (38) and 0.61 modification motions per case (28) and the full picture emerges: active discovery, frequent calendar motions, a documented record of alleged non-compliance, and a high level of overall filing activity.

The filing volume — and who sees it most

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~24 filings on the docket per case (1,108 total). The volume is not evenly distributed:

• More filings appear against unrepresented opponents, not fewer. Against a pro-se opponent: 27.3 filings/case (20 such cases). Against a represented opponent: 21.6/case (26 cases). The party least equipped to respond tends to see the heavier paper load.
• The heaviest filing counts on record: Hiltz v. Dessureau (UWY-FA21-6074850-S) — 64 filings (opponent pro se); Silva v. Silva (NNH-FA21-6115596-S) — 62 filings (opponent pro se); De Lucia v. Castillo (FBT-FA17-6067023-S) — 58 filings; Thomas v. Thomas (FBT-FA18-6080198-S) — 58 filings; Bishop v. Bishop (FBT-FA19-6087351-S) — 57 filings.
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Grafos v. Tomachinski (FBT-FA14-4045948-S) — 48 filings; Farrington v. Vobroucek (FBT-FA17-5033353-S) — 43 filings; Wheeler v. Wheeler (NNH-FA14-4063509-S) — 37 filings. Dozens of filings appear in matters where the opposing party had no attorney.

This is the core of the volume pattern: the docket itself accumulates a large number of entries. A self-represented party is, statistically, within this firm's heavier-volume opponent profile — the section below describes the procedural tools and rules that are relevant to that asymmetry.

Their motion mix (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in 10.9% of their cases (5 of 46), and the firm affirmatively moves for GAL appointment in some of those (9 such motions on the docket). GAL involvement here is occasional rather than routine — but where a custody dispute is live, the firm has on occasion sought one.
• The data does not show this firm repeatedly pairing with the same small set of guardians ad litem; the GAL appointments on record are spread across different individuals.

What this means as information: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed individual's prior pairings with a firm and the local bench are a matter of public record that a party can research. The scope, budget, and reporting timeline of a GAL are ordinarily addressed in the appointment order itself; an unscoped GAL appointment is an open-ended cost and an open-ended factor in a case.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Jane Grossman (18) more than any other judge, then Moore (12), Gould (12), Grasso Egan (9), Truglia (8), Adelman (7), Goodrow (7), and Wenzel (6). Their 83% grant rate is partly a function of familiarity — they know the FBT-area bench's preferences and motion practice. A self-represented party's familiarity with an assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice is something the public record makes available to anyone.

What to expect — and your procedural options

This is a 7-motions-per-case practice whose defining feature is volume. The following describes the patterns above and the procedural tools and rules that correspond to each — as information, not as a recommendation about any specific case:

1. Discovery is the main area of activity (2.89 discovery motions/case). Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions. Documenting each response creates a record. Where requests are claimed to be excessive, the motion for protective order is the procedural tool a party may use to ask the court to limit discovery. A complete and timely discovery record is what bears on the question of which party is compliant, and it is relevant to fee arguments.

1. Contempt is a frequently-filed motion here (0.89 contempt motions per case, 22 of them post-judgment). Where contempt is alleged, contemporaneous proof of compliance with an order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the kind of evidence that bears on a contempt finding. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents is one that, on the record, may not succeed.

1. Fee requests appear at 0.83 per case. 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 §46b-62 makes relevant.

1. Continuances are the single most-filed motion (98 total, 2.17/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. These are the two procedural levers that bear on the pace of a matter.

1. Filing volume runs higher against pro-se opponents (27.3 filings/case vs 21.6 against represented opponents). Volume is a feature of the docket, distinct from the merits of any filing. A short, merits-focused record is what the substantive questions (custody, support, division) are decided on.

1. The profile rests on a limited sample — 46 cases and 104 decided motions. The 83% grant rate reflects a small, judge-familiar history rather than a fixed rule. An assigned judge's standing orders are public; the substantive questions in a matter are decided on their own terms, independent of filing volume.

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. 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.