Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Michael Hanzman. Photo: AM Holt

Three-year legal malpractice litigation between prominent Miami developer Avra Jain and Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney ended with no winner.

Jain sued Buchanan Ingersoll and former South Florida managing partner Richard Morgan in Miami in 2017, alleging they failed to thoroughly and effectively represent her in a lawsuit she lost over a failed Doral real estate venture.

Jain's business partner, Abraham Cohen, sued her for failing to pay him over $4 million after she agreed to buy him out of the project.

The legal malpractice claim largely was based on allegations that attorneys failed to focus on a missing original promissory note that Jain claims was pivotal for her defense against Cohen.

Buchanan Ingersoll filed a counterclaim against Jain alleging she stopped paying her legal bills.

They both lost their claims seeking millions of dollars.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Michael Hanzman on Thursday in a Zoom hearing denied Buchanan Ingersoll's motion for summary judgment on its claim for $1.3 million in attorney fees plus interest.

Hanzman gave Buchanan Ingersoll's attorney Jim Robinson, a White & Case partner in Miami, a choice of dismissing its accounts stated and quantum meruit counts in its counterclaim without prejudice or pursuing trial. Hanzman warned that if Buchanan Ingersoll opted for trial, Hanzman might reconsider his previous denial of Jain's motion to amend her complaint to include a misadvisement claim.

Robinson on Friday filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice but reserved the right to reinstate the case if an appellate court reverses any of the trial court orders.

Hanzman on Friday granted Jain's motion for partial summary judgment on Buchanan Ingersoll's breach of contract count in its counterclaim.

Jain earlier this year was dealt blows when Hanzman on March 13 granted Buchanan Ingersoll's motion for summary judgment on Jain's claim over the missing original promissory note. He rejected Jain's motion for reconsideration in April.

Hanzman issued a final judgment Friday in part for Jain and in part for Buchanan Ingersoll.

Hanzman's final judgment in favor of Buchanan Ingersoll on Jain's second amended complaint and in favor of Jain on the firm's breach of contract count leaves nothing left to be tried.

If the appellate court allows Jain to proceed with any of her claims against Buchanan Ingersoll, the law firm has the right to reinstate its dismissed claims against Jain, Hanzman said.

Buchanan Ingersoll declined comment, and Robinson didn't return a request for comment by deadline.

Jain also didn't return a request for comment. She was represented by Boies Schiller Flexner partners Bruce Weil and Steven Davis in Miami until recently hiring former Roger Stone attorney Bruce Rogow of Fort Lauderdale. Weil and Davis didn't return requests for comment, and Rogow had no comment.

Underlying Case

The Jain-Buchanan Ingersoll tiff grew out of a defunct plan for a Doral condominium project.

Jain and Cohen partnered on the venture in 2006, and Jain in court filings said Cohen in 2007 asked to be bought out the following year with a promissory note. Jain through her H-H Investments LLC paid $500,000 and then made nine $50,000 payments.

Jain said H-H Investments stopped paying because Cohen made material representations about the venture and fraudulently induced her to invest. When she confronted him, he agreed to tear up the promissory note and get back into the project, Jain said in her suit against Buchanan Ingersoll.

In 2009, Cohen sued Jain for nonpayment, naming H-H Investments on claims pertaining to the note and Jain on a claim that she guaranteed payment. Jain hired Buchanan Ingersoll to defend her.

Retired Miami-Dade Judge Jacqueline Hogan Scola issued a judgment after a trial against Jain, awarding Cohen more than $8 million. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.

Jain ultimately was on the hook for roughly $10 million at the close of Cohen's lawsuit. Jain's appeal focused largely on Cohen's failure to produce the original promissory note, and she argued the guaranty claim against her couldn't stand without the original note. Cohen maintained Jain was liable for her guaranty whether the note was produced or not.

Malpractice Case

In the malpractice case, Jain again focused on the note, this time accusing her attorneys of not addressing it well in the Cohen case.

"Jain alleges that Buchanan's failure to timely raise this objection and/or move for directed verdict 'proximately caused' her to suffer the adverse judgment, a judgment she would not have been exposed to 'but for' Buchanan's malpractice," Hanzman wrote in his March 13 order against Jain.

Buchanan Ingersoll in its countersuit said Jain didn't pay the firm from 2015 to 2017.

Hanzman on March 13 granted Buchanan Ingersoll's motion for summary judgment and struck Jain's argument that she lost the Cohen suit because of the note issue. The  judge concluded Jain's personal guaranty to Cohen was nonnegotiable and a separate issue. Cohen's guaranty claim guaranty stood on its own even without the note, so Buchanan Ingersoll's failure to bring up its absence didn't impact the outcome, Hanzman wrote in the order.

The judge also rejected Jain's "bankrupt legal malpractice claim, which is nothing more than a misguided and desperate attempt to shift Jain's adjudicated contractual liability onto her former counsel."

"But like most 'Hail Marys,' this throw falls far short of the end zone," Hanzman added.

Jain lost the Cohen case because her defenses were rejected, "not due to any fault on the part of her former counsel," the judge concluded.

Read the final judgment: