For years now, a porn studio called Malibu Media has filed more copyright lawsuits than any other company. Each month, Malibu, which produces adult content under the brand name X-Art, sues hundreds of "John Doe" Internet users, accusing particular IP addresses of illegally downloading its movies using BitTorrent networks.

Malibu's owners, Brigham Field and Collette Pelissier Field, have said the flood of lawsuits is necessary to deter piracy. Now, though, they're targeting the very lawyer who headed up their giant copyright enforcement campaign, Florida-based Keith Lipscomb.

Earlier today, Malibu filed suit against Lipscomb and his firm, Lipscomb, Eisenberg & Baker, in federal court. The lawsuit claims Lipscomb didn't provide them the proper paperwork for their cases and related finances and that he was negligent in his representation. The complaint (PDF) discloses that Lipscomb sued Malibu in Florida state court on June 10 and alleges that confidential information was revealed in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims that Malibu Media never even had a written retainer agreement with Lipscomb's firm, nor was there any written agreement as to whether the law firm would get paid on a "contingency, flat fee, or hourly basis."

Malibu was promised a cut of any settlement proceeds, but the complaint doesn't state what percentage Malibu was entitled to. At some point, the percentage changed, and Lipscomb's firm started charging filing fees for each new case.

In an e-mail to Ars, Lipscomb said the lawsuit's allegations are false.

"Other than that, I will not comment on pending litigation except to say Malibu, Pillar and the Florida entities owe LEB [his law firm] and me an enormous amount of money," he added. "The federal suit is a disgusting attempt to gain leverage to avoid paying LEB and me for the damages claimed under the existing Florida suit."

Lipscomb wouldn't detail the allegations in the lawsuit he filed on June 10, which he said remains sealed under the rules of Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, because it alleges malfeasance by attorneys.

Sudden stop

The 17-page complaint, reported earlier today by the Fight Copyright Trolls blog, details how the parties had a falling-out once Malibu started asking questions about the state of its litigation.

In September 2015, Lipscomb told Malibu he wanted to get additional financing for the litigation, which would "encumber the trust account" but allow him to "catch up and capitalize" the copyright enforcement program.

After that, with the exception of a single $100,000 payment, Malibu stopped getting paid by Lipscomb. Malibu asked for a full accounting of the state of the copyright campaign, but the company didn't get the documentation it was asking for. The company hired a new law firm, Beverly Hills-based Pillar Law Group, to investigate the situation. (The same firm filed this lawsuit.)

In April, Lipscomb said the copyright campaign was "winding down" because it was no longer profitable. With regard to accounting, Lipscomb's firm offered profit and loss statements from September 2015 forward. Lipscomb said he “can represent and warrant in an engagement agreement in advance of an accounting or P&L’s that LEB has never paid itself anywhere close to a reasonable hourly rate for its services.”

Missing statements

On April 18, Lipscomb advised all his regional lawyers that he no longer represented Malibu Media. He withdrew from a case entitled Malibu Media v. Jesse Raleigh, which was pending in Michigan federal court. Then Lipscomb sued Malibu on June 10, though little is known about those allegations at this point.

Lipscomb's sudden withdrawal left Malibu holding the proverbial bag, the porn company's new lawyers say. Malibu was unable to find new counsel for its case against Jesse Raleigh, leading the court to dismiss the case on May 24. Raleigh's lawyer filed a motion seeking costs and attorneys' fees in the amount of $158,685, and that motion is pending. Malibu says that Lipscomb's sudden withdrawal amounted to negligence and a breach of fiduciary duty.

Malibu also claims that Lipscomb failed to properly disclose expert testimony in another case, which led to a defense win and an award of attorneys' fees against Malibu. Finally, the lawsuit states that Lipscomb's failure to provide a written retainer agreement is a violation of Florida bar rules.

Lipscomb knew the program had to be wound down cleanly but failed to do so, Malibu says. The copyright enforcement program was "incredibly sophisticated and nuanced," Lipscomb warned his client in an e-mail. "[I]f the cases (or the steps in a wind down process) are mismanaged… Malibu will lose cases or be

sanctioned by courts or both."

The lawsuit acknowledges that Lipscomb's firm did provide "supported" bank statements from November 2015 through the end of its representation. However, Malibu claims it never got any documentation covering the period from 2012 until the fall of 2015, although it did receive funds during that period.

Court records show Malibu hasn't filed any new copyright lawsuits since April 13.

If the litigation between Lipscomb and Malibu continues and gets ugly, it could provide insight into the world of high-volume copyright litigants sometimes called "copyright trolls."

Whether that happens or not, the apparent demise of Malibu Media's copyright enforcement seems likely to be a cautionary tale. Campaigns of mass-copyright litigation—consider Prenda, Righthaven, and other efforts—don't seem to have a very long lifespan, whether they're legitimate or not.