 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Sara’s practice is exclusively devoted to family law where she represents clients on matters involving divorce, custody, parenting time, spousal support, child support, domestic violence, relocation issues, grandparent visitation, adoption, and appellate matters. Sara’s effective advocacy and sensitivity to her clients’ circumstances lead to positive results and satisfied clients. Following her clerkship in the Chancery Division, General Equity, Bergen County, Sara became associated with a Hudson County law firm before joining her father’s firm, Robert T. Corcoran, P.C. in 2008. She is a member of the Bergen County Bar Association and the New Jersey State Bar Association and serves as a volunteer attorney for the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
Admissions
- United States Supreme Court, 2016
- 2005 – State of New Jersey
- 2005 – United States District Court, District of New Jersey
Education
- Marymount Manhattan College, BA, Cum Laude, 2002
- New York Law School, J.D., 2005
Special Distinctions
- Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory– Peer Review Legal Ability Rating AV Preeminent for Ethical Standards and Legal Ability and Client Rating 5.0.
- 2012 – 2016 Rising Star Super Lawyer – New Jersey Monthly Magazine
- “The National Trial Lawyers: The Top 40 under 40” 2014-2016, a professional organization comprised of America’s top young trial attorneys.
Memberships
- Bergen County Bar Association
- New Jersey State Bar Association, Young Lawyers Division
- Animal Legal Defense Fund, Volunteer Attorney
Reported Cases
- Houseman v. Dare, 405 N.J.Super. 538(App. Div. 2009)
Pro bono:
Ms. Corcoran serves as a volunteer attorney for the Animal Legal Defense Fund. In 2009 she filed an amicus brief on behalf of the organization in the matter of Houseman v. Dare, 405 N.J. Super. 538 (App. Div. 2009), which dealt with the value of pets in family court matters. Specifically, the Appellate Division reversed and remanded the decision of the trial court, which awarded Dare possession of the dog and Houseman $1,500 for her interest in the pet. The Appellate Division directed that the trial court conduct further proceedings on the existence of an oral agreement regarding ownership and possession of the dog and the propriety of specific performance as a legal remedy.