Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Willinger Willinger & Bucci PLLC
Firm Juris No. 023585 · Bridgeport / lower Fairfield County, CT · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records
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) | 53 | A steady contested-divorce practice |
| Home turf | Bridgeport (FBT): 15, then Stamford/Norwalk (FST: 13), New Haven (NNH: 9) | Lower Fairfield + the I-95 corridor is where this firm most often appears |
| Side they take | 33 plaintiff / 20 defendant | Files first more often than not |
| Motions per case | 4.23 | A moderate-but-deliberate motion practice |
| Contested-motion win rate | 90% (74 granted vs 8 denied) | When this firm puts a motion to a judge, it is granted in the large majority of recorded outcomes |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Jane Grossman (14), then Winslow (10), Dembo (8), Diana (8) | They appear before a familiar bench |
Bottom line: a focused firm that does not file unusually high volume but prevails on most of the motions it actually puts to a judge. Its distinguishing characteristics are focus, attention to the record, and procedure rather than sheer paper volume.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is discovery activity + calendar control + fee requests. Three numbers describe the pattern:
- 2.08 discovery motions per case (110 markers) — discovery is where this firm is most active. Motions to compel (10) and discovery-related objections and extensions appear repeatedly. The effect is that the process itself becomes a significant part of the litigation before the merits are reached.
- 1.76 continuances per case (93 markers; 90 Motions for Continuance — their single most-filed motion by a wide margin) — the case tends to move on this firm's calendar. Continuances are the dominant feature of their filing history.
- 0.79 counsel-fee requests per case (42 markers; including Motions for Counsel Fees pendente lite) — they frequently ask the court to have the other side contribute to fees. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is a recurring feature of the firm's practice.
Add a measured contempt practice (0.26 per case, 14 markers) and the overall picture is a firm whose activity concentrates in discovery, timing, and fee requests, with a relatively small number of motions actually reaching a ruling.
The filing pattern — and where it concentrates
Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~18.0 filings on the docket per case. The volume tilts toward the unrepresented:
- Filing volume is higher against unrepresented opponents. Against a pro-se opponent: 19.14 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 17.16/case. In this sample, a self-represented spouse faces meaningfully more filings than one with a lawyer.
- The heaviest filing counts on record: Yarrell v. Rowe (FST-FA22-5026440-S) — 56 filings (opponent pro se); Yungaitis v. Arauz Pizzurno (HHD-FA24-6191438-S) — 44; Sutin v. Sutin (FST-FA17-5016484-S) — 43 (opponent pro se).
- Against self-represented opponents specifically: Yarrell v. Rowe — 56 filings; Sutin v. Sutin — 43; Cardona v. Gomez (NNH-FA24-5060103-S) — 35; Loboncz v. Loboncz (FBT-FA17-6064779-S) — 30 — all against opponents with no attorney.
For a self-represented party, the data indicates this firm's filing volume tends to run heavier — the section below describes the procedural tools and rules that correspond to each of these patterns.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 90 | Their most-filed motion — calendar control |
| Motion for Order | 23 | General-purpose / agenda-setting |
| Objection to Motion | 11 | Responds to opposing motions on the record |
| Motion to Compel | 10 | Discovery enforcement |
| Motion for Extension re Discovery | 6 | Extends the discovery timeline |
| Motion for Orders Before Judgment — Pendente Lite | 6 | Sets interim terms early |
| Motion for Counsel Fees Pendente Lite | 6 | Fee request |
| Motion for Contempt Post-Judgment | 4 | Post-judgment enforcement |
GAL strategy
- GAL appears in 0% of their recorded cases (gal_present_rate 0.0). On this docket sample the firm does not rely on guardians ad litem as a custody lever. The data shows no repeat-GAL pairings to flag.
- What this means: GAL infrastructure is not a feature of this firm's recorded practice. Where a GAL is proposed in a case, the appointment order is the document that defines the GAL's scope, budget, and reporting timeline; an unscoped appointment leaves those terms open-ended. This is a general feature of how GAL appointments work, not a recommendation about any case.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Jane Grossman (14) more than any other judge, then Winslow (10), Dembo (8), Diana (8), Vizcarrondo (7), with Hartley Moore, Heller, and Kowalski rounding out the rotation. Their 90% contested-motion win rate is partly a function of familiarity — a firm that appears before the same judges learns those judges' preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. Each judge's standing orders are public, and a party who is unfamiliar with the assigned judge can read them to understand how that courtroom operates.
What to expect — and your procedural options
This firm is focused and has a high recorded win rate on the motions it files. The information below describes what each pattern is and the procedural tools and rules that correspond to it. None of it is a recommendation about what to do in any specific case.
- The 90% recorded win rate. This firm's side prevailed on 74 of the 82 contested motions that reached a ruling in this sample. In general, a motion's outcome turns on the strength of the supporting record, and a denied motion still becomes part of the docket.
- Discovery activity. At 2.08 discovery motions per case, discovery is where this firm is most active. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions or a motion to compel. Where a discovery demand is overbroad, an objection is the procedural response the rules provide, and documented responses are what establish a party's compliance on the record.
- Calendar control. Continuances are this firm's single most-filed motion (90 of them; 1.76 per case). A continuance 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. These are the two procedural levers that correspond to calendar timing.
- Fee requests. With 42 fee markers, fee requests are a recurring feature of this firm's practice. Under Connecticut law, fee awards turn on need and the parties' respective litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). The litigation conduct that drives cost — including continuances and discovery motions — is part of the record the court considers on a fee question.
- Filing volume against self-represented parties. This firm files ~19.1 filings/case against pro-se opponents versus ~17.2 against represented ones. A dated log of every filing, deadline, and response is the basic tracking practice that keeps a high-volume docket organized; for a self-represented party, the data suggests the volume may run on the heavier end.
- The merits. This firm's recorded edge is the motions it files before a familiar bench. A short, merits-focused record and the substantive questions of a family case — custody, support, division of property — are what the court ultimately decides. This firm's volume is not unusually high; its defining feature is focus and a high recorded win rate on contested motions, not paper volume.
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.