Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Yolen & Perzin LLC
Firm Juris No. 101183 · New Haven County, CT · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records
Limited sample (28 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) | 28 | A small but active New Haven family practice |
| Home turf | New Haven (NNH): 26, then Bridgeport (1), Stamford (1) | New Haven is their court — almost everything runs there |
| Side they take | 11 plaintiff / 17 defendant | Defends more often than it files first — frequently the responding party |
| Motions per case | 3.11 | A moderate motion load — a selective filer rather than a carpet-bomber |
| Filings per case | 14.82 | A steady, sustained paper presence on each docket |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Jane Grossman (12), then Goodrow (5), Kenefick (3) | They appear before the New Haven bench regularly |
Bottom line: a focused, single-attorney New Haven shop that builds its cases on discovery and fee pressure rather than raw motion volume. The sample is small, so read the rates as direction, not destiny. The defining markers in the record are the record itself, procedure, and discovery activity.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is discovery pressure + fee leverage, applied steadily rather than in a flood. The markers tell the story:
- 2.46 discovery-related motions per case (69 total) — discovery is far and away their most frequent move, well ahead of everything else. The pattern centers the litigation on the production process: requests that keep the other side producing, with leverage built from what comes back.
- 1.75 counsel-fee touchpoints per case (49 total) — fee leverage is a recurring theme. Requests that the other side pay fees appear frequently. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is a notable pressure point: the firm's pattern includes framing the litigation as something that carries a cost for the opposing party.
- 0.75 continuances per case (21 total) — the calendar is a tool in this firm's pattern, but used less aggressively than in a pure attrition practice. Delay appears as one tool here, not the whole strategy.
GAL appointment shows up as a marker in 13 instances across the sample, but only one case actually had a GAL present on the docket (see GAL section). The pattern is a firm that raises the GAL question in custody fights more often than one actually lands.
The filing volume — and where it concentrated
Across the sample, the firm's side puts ~14.8 filings on the docket per case — a sustained presence, but not the hundreds-of-filings deluge of a high-volume attrition firm.
The heaviest individual dockets on record (filings by the firm's side):
- Beberman-Jennes v. Jennes (NNH-FA19-6096503-S) — 46 filings (opponent self-represented). The firm's heaviest case on record, and it ran against a party with no attorney.
- Ahlert-Smith v. Smith (NNH-FA21-6116808-S) — 29 filings.
- Goldblatt v. Goldblatt (NNH-FA02-0463056-S) — 28 filings (opponent self-represented).
- Zhang v. Shen (NNH-FA19-6096500-S) — 27 filings.
- Califano v. Becker (NNH-FA18-6078245-S) — 22 filings.
Two of the five heaviest dockets were against self-represented opponents. One observation from the data: the firm's largest paper loads in this sample landed on parties without counsel, which is information a self-represented party may find relevant when anticipating the pace of a contested matter.
Their motion patterns (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 20 | Affects the calendar |
| Motion for Order | 16 | General-purpose, agenda-setting motion |
| Motion for Extension of Time | 11 | Extends deadlines |
| Motion for Alimony, Custody & Child Support | 6 | Sets the substantive financial/custody agenda |
| Motion for Alimony Pendente Lite | 5 | Addresses interim support early |
| Motion to Open and Modify Judgment | 4 | Reopens settled terms post-judgment |
| Motion for Counsel Fees Pendente Lite | 4 | Fee leverage |
| Motion for Appointment of GAL | 3 | Introduces a third decision-maker into custody fights |
GAL section
- A GAL was actually present in only ~3.6% of their cases (1 of 28), even though GAL appointment surfaces as a marker more often. In this firm's pattern, the GAL question is raised in custody disputes more often than one is landed.
- The sample does not support reporting any repeat GAL pairing — there is no documented recurring GAL relationship to flag here.
What the rules provide: when a GAL is proposed, the appointment order is the procedural place where scope, budget, and reporting deadlines are defined; an unscoped GAL leaves cost and risk open-ended. Given how rarely a GAL actually appears in this firm's cases, the data point on the 3.6% frequency is relevant context for any GAL question that arises.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Jane Grossman (12) more than any other judge, then Goodrow (5), Kenefick (3), Nastri (3), and Griffin (3) — a New Haven rotation they know well. A self-represented opponent who learns the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice narrows the familiarity gap; that familiarity is one of this firm's structural advantages in its home court.
On motion outcomes: the decided-motion sample here is too small to report a reliable contested-motion win rate. The docket records relatively few motions with a clear granted/denied outcome, so any percentage would be misleading. No outcome should be assumed from this profile — each motion is decided on its own merits.
What to expect — and your procedural options
This firm's pattern is discovery-and-fee-driven, with the leverage concentrated in a few recurring markers. The descriptions below pair each pattern with the procedural tools and rules that relate to it. These are descriptions of how the process works, not recommendations about any specific case.
- Discovery is the dominant marker. Discovery is this firm's single most frequent move — 2.46 discovery motions per case, by far its top marker. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; a documented, complete response record is what supports a "compliant party" position on the record. Where discovery demands are overbroad, a protective-order motion is the procedural tool a party may use to limit them. Compliance is also what undercuts a fee argument premised on the other side's conduct.
- Fee leverage is a recurring theme. With 1.75 fee touchpoints per case, requests that the opposing party pay fees are common in this firm's pattern. In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's own record of the opposing side's motion and continuance activity is the kind of documentation that bears on the litigation-conduct factor; where expense is driven by an opposing party's filings, that fact cuts in the responding party's favor under the statute.
- The calendar drives the top two filing types. Between continuances (20) and extensions of time (11), this firm's two most frequent filings both concern the calendar. 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. Each requested delay is something the moving party must justify on the record.
- The pendente-lite agenda is set early. This firm moves early for alimony, custody, support, and PL counsel fees. A complete financial affidavit and a clear interim proposal at the first hearing are the materials through which a responding party places its own position before the court alongside the moving party's motion, rather than leaving the court's baseline shaped solely by one filing.
- GAL appointments are infrequent here. A GAL appears in only ~3.6% of this firm's cases, so whether one is needed at all is a live question in any given matter. When a GAL is appointed, the appointment order is where a written scope, budget, and reporting deadline are set.
- Volume is steady, not overwhelming. At ~14.8 filings per case, this firm's volume is its defining feature, but it is steady-pressure rather than overwhelming-volume. The practical implication is that a tight, clean, merits-focused record — few motions, each well-supported and documented, with the substantive questions (custody, support, division) kept in view — operates on the same scale this firm does.
Methodology & limits
Computed from public CT Judicial Branch docket entries and party rosters (parties → filing-side attribution → motion/outcome tally). Marker counts use keyword matching on docket event descriptions and may include related sub-types. The decided-motion sample is too small to report a contested-motion win rate. Firm-name aggregation follows the docket's recorded firm name (the source truncates long names). With only 28 contested cases in the sample, all rates are indicative rather than definitive. Patterns reflect aggregate history, not the conduct of any one attorney or the merits of any one case.