Skip to main content

Graham v. Famous Daves of America, Inc.

D. Md.November 23, 2020No. 1:19-cv-00486
Plaintiff WinFamous Daves of America, Inc$7,909.25 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
Labor: Fair Standards
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

Plaintiff Catherine F. Sorenson prevailed in her attorney malpractice action against defendant Michael Fio Rito. The court awarded damages including $6,409.25 in tax penalties and interest, plus $1,500 in attorneys' fees incurred in attempting to obtain refunds, finding that Fio Rito breached his duty of care by failing to timely file inheritance and estate tax returns.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** This case involved Catherine Sorenson, who sued her attorney Michael Fio Rito for malpractice. Sorenson had hired Fio Rito to handle estate and inheritance tax matters, but he failed to file the required tax returns on time. Because of these missed deadlines, Sorenson ended up owing significant tax penalties and interest to the government that she wouldn't have owed if the paperwork had been filed properly and on time. **Court's Decision** The court ruled in favor of Sorenson, finding that her attorney breached his professional duty by failing to meet the tax filing deadlines. The court ordered Fio Rito to pay $7,909.25 in total damages - $6,409.25 to cover the tax penalties and interest that resulted from his mistake, plus $1,500 in attorney's fees that Sorenson spent trying to get tax refunds. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling reinforces that professionals - including attorneys - must be held accountable when their mistakes cost clients money. Workers who hire lawyers or other professionals have the right to expect competent service, and when that standard isn't met, they can seek compensation for the financial harm that results from professional negligence.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.