United States Supreme Court

Eric With A Tie

Client Representation Philosophy

Eric C. Lang’s General Background

Helping people we care about solve problems and achieve goals is more than just a "ten-word" mission statement. I believe that every legal matter presents a problem, the solution to which depends entirely on defining goals. If the problem is a $50,000 lawsuit, and a win costs $100,000, then winning might not be the solution. When client and counsel focus on a goal and not just an outcome,  everyone  can  win.

After graduating first in his law school class from the University of Florida in 1990, Mr. Lang practiced with Long, Aldridge & Norman (n/k/a Dentons).  He left partnership there in 1998 to join Paul Hastings and formed his current firm in 2003.  His practice is devoted to serving the business-related litigation and general counseling needs of companies and individuals who desired sophisticated services but were outside of the target market of the larger firms. He has handled a wide range of matters, ranging from multi-million-dollar litigation to simple business formation. Further details can be found at About Eric C. Lang.

























In Scott v. Vantage, in the U.S.D.C. for Delaware,  No. 17-CV-448-MPT, July 25, 2021, Lang Legal client Gerald Finegold was awarded his fees for defending a securities fraud, tort, and contract action. Mr. Finegold had already been granted summary judgment on all counts, claims, and allegations made against him. The Court concluded: "In light of the lack of factual or legal support for all of plaintiffs’ federal securities claims against Finegold at the time they filed their complaint, the court finds plaintiffs and their counsel substantially violated Rule 11 with respect to the claims against Finegold."   Under an assignment agreement, Finegold is also entitled to receive fees paid on his behalf:  "defendants seek attorneys’ fees that Vantage Corporation paid for the defense[] of Finegold . . . Vantage Corporation assigned to defendant[] its right to recover the attorneys’ fees it incurred defending  . . .Finegold . . . the court will proceed with the PSLRA-mandated Rule 11 analysis for those attorneys’ fees."  The Court has not yet ruled on the amount of the sanction, but the amount sought exceeds $1,000,000.

Read the opinion here:

Read initial press coverage here:














Core Competencies

Lang Legal has three practice emphases: dispute resolution, business representation, and consulting attorney. Though these practice areas are explored in depth on the corresponding pages, they can be briefly summarized as follows:

  • Dispute Resolution:  Jury trials, non-jury trials, and arbitrations taken fully to verdict or award. Motion practice and oral argument resulting in dismissal or judgment in advance of trial. Pre-litigation counseling and negotiation resulting in early endings to disputes. Broad subject matter litigation experience including contracts, insurance, real property, technology, business duties and breakups, intellectual property, executive/managerial employment disputes, and technology.

  • Business Representation: Agreements, including employment agreements, purchase/sale agreements, rights transfers, and various corporate documents.

  • Consulting Attorney: Brief / pleading writing and assistance; focused legal research; trial preparation; training.


Important Note About This Website

I have made every effort to link statements on these pages to court decisions, filed pleadings, public presentations, news accounts and other appropriate sources because I want you to know that I'm not "just saying" things. Please follow the provided links. I can tell you that I've left what I hope are some entertaining "easter eggs" behind some of those links (by which  I  mean, things to cause laughter which are not at all serious).