- J.D., Duke University School of Law, 2004
- B.A., Samford University, 2001
Lance has recently acted as lead trial counsel in a number of Engle progeny cases in Florida, representing smokers and their families against tobacco manufacturers. He argued a successful appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeals in Florida, securing a $1.5 million* verdict for a smoker’s widow in a wrongful death suit against tobacco giants Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds in Philip Morris USA Inc. et al. v. Marchese. He also served as counsel in Berger v. Philip Morris USA Inc., which resulted in a $27 million* verdict for a client who fell victim at a young age to the manufacturer’s marketing campaigns targeting children.
Lance has also devoted a substantial amount of time to litigating securities fraud class actions, and has served as co-lead counsel for the class in many securities fraud cases including Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, et al. v. Pharmacia Corp., et al., a securities fraud class action that settled for $164 million dollars*. More recently, Lance selected the jury as co-trial counsel for the end-payor class in In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation, pay-for-delay antitrust litigation.
Prior to joining Motley Rice in 2007, Lance served as an associate in the Washington, D.C., office of a national law firm, where he worked on complex products liability litigation at both the trial and appellate levels.
Lance is a member of the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems (NCPERS) and the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans (IFEBP). After graduating from Duke Law School, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable James Hughes Hancock of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama. He is recognized as an AV® rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell®. He serves on the Board of Directors for the Charleston chapter of the American Lung Association, as well as the Dee Norton Child Advocacy Center.
*Please remember that every case is different. Any result we achieve for one client in one matter does not necessarily indicate similar results can be obtained for other clients.