Last Updated on February 22, 2026 by Rob Cashman
I’ve been fighting these copyright troll lawsuits for over a decade now — Strike 3 Holdings, Ansys, Malibu Media (RIP), CEG-TEK (RIP), you name it. And one question keeps coming up from scared ISP account holders who contact me after getting burned: Are these so-called “defense” attorneys actually on the side of the plaintiffs they’re supposedly defending you against? Are they working for Strike 3 Holdings or Ansys while taking your money to “represent” you?
The short answer is no — at least not in the blatant, unethical way that would cause them to lose their law licenses. But as I’ve detailed in past articles like “Beware of the defense attorney “settlement factory”, it sure can feel that way, and why hiring one of these volume-based “discount” attorneys often leaves you in a legally exposed, vulnerable position.
It’s Unethical (and Illegal) to Dual-Represent Without Disclosure
Straight up, no reputable attorney can represent both sides of a lawsuit. Under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 1.7 on Conflicts of Interest), a lawyer cannot represent a client if there’s a significant risk that the representation will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client — like representing both the defendant (you), and the plaintiff in the case you’re paying them to fight. Most states have adopted near-identical rules (e.g., California Rule 1.7, New York Rule 1.7, Florida Rule 4-1.7), and getting caught dual-dipping means disbarment or suspension.
If a “defense” attorney is secretly on the plaintiff’s payroll while pretending to defend you, that’s not just unethical — it’s fraud. Proving it is tough, though. There is almost a zero chance they would leave a paper trail. But watch for the ‘RED FLAGS’ I flagged years ago (I will go into this topic later in the article).
The Real Problem: Volume-based Settlement Attorneys Cave to Plaintiff Leverage
Even without outright collusion, settlement factories effectively act as extensions of the copyright trolls. Why? Because they ONLY take cases for a small handful of copyright trolls — all Strike 3, all Ansys — making them dependent on the troll’s goodwill for their next batch of clients. The plaintiffs hold all the negotiating power: They control the subpoenas, the docket, and via the settlement factories, they also control the flow of scared defendants and the settlement amounts their attorneys will push upon them. Yielding to their demands keeps the settlement factory humming; fighting back against the trolls kills their business model.
As I observed and called out almost 10 years ago in “Weretrolls, Turnkey Settlement Factories, and Bad ‘Defense’ Attorneys”:
“There are attorneys who have turned the copyright infringement lawsuits into ‘turnkey’ settlement operations (‘settlement factories’), ‘riding the gravy train of a broken system’… These attorneys scale up and hire attorneys to answer phone calls, but instead of honestly evaluating the meritorious defenses of a would-be client, they scare, threaten, and apply high-pressure tactics to accused defendants manipulating them to settle the claims against them.“
Ansys, Inc. ‘Defense Attorney’ Tactics
Take Ansys cases. If you actually looked at the docket of their cases, would you see a healthy number of defense attorneys? Or do you see ONE attorney who is dominating and trying to get ALL the defendants? And is that attorney licensed to practice in the state in which he is representing all these defendants?
For a federal lawsuit, this attorney does not need to be licensed in Texas, and I have nothing against him; I have made my opinions about the ethical questionability of the Ansys cases public, and I am not this guy’s competition for these cases because I am not trying to solicit clients for this plaintiff’s cases. But, I am still pointing this out — have you seen who is trying to represent each and every one of the defendants and who is settling each and every case, when really, settlements should not be the outcome of these cases?
I went onto the docket for the Ansys, Inc. v. Does 1 Through 323 (Case No. 6:25-cv-00292) in the Western District of Texas yesterday, and I was nauseated by what I saw. I am pasting a screenshot below because the docket speaks for itself as to what is happening:
Without me saying even anything — what do YOU see? [A NOTICE of Dismissal With Prejudice is a settlement.] Who is the “defense” attorney that is settling so many of these cases, likely at $80,000 per settlement (coming down from $300,000+ per settlement)? [Just to be clear, I am purposefully not posting the top of this docket where his name is plastered everywhere, because the focus of this article is on whether DEFENSE ATTORNEYS are really working for the trolls or not, not on what one particular attorney is doing.]
How does such a thing happen? Ansys is suing engineers in locations where they believe their defendants have money (in my experience, mainly California expensive neighborhoods).
Ansys, Inc. attorneys demand your tax returns and full financials to “prove” what you can afford, and the defense attorneys play right along. I flat-out refuse — your tax records are private, and bank statements show income just fine. But settlement factory attorneys? They hand it over gladly, giving Ansys a roadmap to squeeze every dime. And what is the result? Settlement after settlement after settlement.
Whoever is doing each of these settlements is singlehandedly funding every future lawsuit Ansys, Inc. will bring for years to come. (And who will cash in on each of those lawsuits, writing ‘puff pieces’ about being an expert in handling Ansys cases, etc., when these future lawsuits are filed?)
It’s hard not to convey bewilderment when writing this article, because that is exactly what I am feeling when writing this. I am in shock that one attorney could be causing so much damage to so many future thousands of defendants when Ansys will file each of their future lawsuits using the settlement money they collected from this lawsuit — I am very aware that this is happening, and that the whole ‘defense’ cottage industry is tied to the ‘copyright troll’ industry. (I will discuss this in more depth below in my personal experiences, under the “Is a ‘COPYRIGHT TROLL’ = ‘SETTLEMENT FACTORY’?” sub-heading).
P.S. – If Ansys wasn’t so predatory in their settlement demands unlike Siemens (a very different plaintiff that also files software piracy lawsuits), I would actually congratulate the attorney who is representing all of these clients (if he were not settling each one). But because I know what Ansys is, and because I have seen first hand what they are asking for from each Defendant and what settlement numbers they are asking, I am actually horrified by seeing so many settlements.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC ‘Defense Attorney’ Tactics
You’ll see a similar willingness to kowtow to the copyright trolls in Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits:
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC demands tax returns too (unnecessary — bank statements suffice); ‘defense’ attorneys comply.
- They insist on their boilerplate settlement agreement, naming you as “Anonymous John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address XX.XX.XX.XX.” ‘Defense’ attorneys sell ‘anonymous settlements’ as a benefit (ignoring the legal exposure their clients get when they settle this way).
- I have said this before: ANONYMOUS SETTLEMENTS sound enticing, but they limit your release to only settle the titles in the Exhibit A which are tied to that one IP address — not the hundreds of other downloads you or someone in your household might have participated in across multiple IPs or over time.
(I have warned about ‘Anonymous Settlements’: See this article to understand why I do not recommend this method. Settling anonymously appears a benefit to an accused downloader. The problem is that it gives the settlement factory attorney a way to use a ‘boilerplate’ release of liability to limit the protection their client gets so that they could settle that client again in a future lawsuit.” https://www.cashmanlawfirm.com/facts/strike-3-holdings-subpoena-lawsuits/)
Many of these “defense” attorneys don’t negotiate the agreement terms either. No pushback on admissions of guilt, no carve-outs for future claims, nothing. It’s copy-paste from the plaintiff, because rocking the boat risks their gravy train.
“SETTLEMENT FACTORY law firms DO NOT NEGOTIATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS either. … They need to be negotiated because ‘boilerplate’ settlement agreements contain ADMISSIONS OF GUILT and UNFRIENDLY LANGUAGE.” https://www.torrentlawyer.com/beware-settlement-factory-attorneys/
The Bait-and-Switch Settlement Game
Here’s where the settlement ‘defense’ attorney gets predatory. Settlement factories lowball you upfront to hook you — “$5,000-$10,000, easy!” — already knowing that the plaintiff won’t bite without your financials. In their consultation calls (sometimes having non-attorneys give ‘legal advice’), they will tell you that they can get unusually low settlement numbers, without explaining that the numbers they are ‘selling’ pre-suppose that you could demonstrate that you can afford only those numbers (and nothing higher). They tell you what you want to hear so that their numbers will be ‘lower than other attorneys will be able to get’. They don’t give you the CONTEXT that the “low” number assumes you waive privacy and prove poverty.
Then the “negotiation”:
“SETTLEMENT FACTORY law firms PRE-ARRANGE settlement amounts. Rather than actually negotiating a good settlement for their client, settlement factories run what I refer to as a ‘volume business.’ They PRE-ARRANGE an often inflated settlement price with the copyright holder, so they will agree to the arrangement with minimal [or no] effort by the so-called defense attorney.” https://www.torrentlawyer.com/beware-settlement-factory-attorneys/
- They “offer” $5k (knowing the counter will be $25k).
- Plaintiff counters high, they “inch up” to the pre-arranged number.
- When it lands where they knew it would, they blame you: “Strike 3 won’t budge unless you cooperate with bank statements/taxes.” They then threaten you with being ‘named and served’ if you don’t comply and give them the settlement numbers the plaintiffs have asked for.
“Knowing the ‘statutory damages’ you could potentially be liable for if found guilty might seem important when making INITIAL decisions [about how you handle] your case; however, [if your attorney brings up ‘statutory damages’ to pressure you into a particular settlement number] this is a misdirection and a fear tactic used by ‘settlement factory’ attorneys.” https://www.cashmanlawfirm.com/strike-3-holdings-settlement-costs/
Refuse to agree with the settlement numbers your attorney is pressuring you to accept? They fire you for “breaching the retainer” by not agreeing to their predetermined outcome. I’ve picked up the pieces for a dozen of these clients — same story every time. They show up broken, exposed, often ‘named and served’ after a failed settlement attempt by a settlement factory, and mad — and I negotiate the real deal without forcing them to accept a settlement number that shouldn’t have been proposed in the first place.
“In my opinion, if you did not do the downloads, then paying them anyway is unfair. Any attorney who suggests otherwise could be engaging in unethical conduct. This is my main issue with volume-based settlement factories — these law firms encourage and often use fear tactics to push a settlement.” https://www.cashmanlawfirm.com/strike-3-holdings-settlement-costs/
MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCES
It goes without saying that when one ‘copyright troll’ comes up with a scheme to sue defendants, ‘settlement factory’ defense attorneys will line up to cash in on those lawsuits.
Is a ‘COPYRIGHT TROLL’ = ‘SETTLEMENT FACTORY’?
As you can see, the answer is NO.
- A copyright troll is a movie production company, an adult film production company, a software company (legitimate, or illegitimate; ethical, or unethical) who decides to file lawsuits against hundreds of defendants to use the federal courts to monetize their illegal activities.
- A settlement factory is an opportunist law firm who’s business model is to scale up to ‘cash in’ on the predatory activities of the copyright trolls.
Really, these are two sides to the same coin. Both are trying to make improper use of the federal court system of statutory damages for their own profit. A copyright troll is looking to file lawsuits to cash in on settlements from each accused defendant; a settlement factory is looking to cash in by herding defendants to provide the trolls their settlements. Both are opportunistic. Both don’t have your best interests in mind. Both are looking for you to pay thousands of dollars for something that you might not have done. Guilt is not relevant to either of them; both assume that whether you are guilty or not, you should still pay.
I did explicitly raise the question of ethics in this article, specifically noting the ethics issue of conflicts of interest which, if proved, could get the defense attorney disbarred or suspended. But again, no attorney is going to sign an agreement to represent a copyright troll and at the same time, represent accused defendants against that copyright troll. But I have often raised the question of whether a defense attorney needs to be cautious about taking clients when their loyalty lies not with their clients, but with the copyright troll ‘against whom’ they are representing their clients.
“GREY LINES”
I have observed a ‘grey line’ between representing multiple clients against the same copyright holder who is filing hundreds or thousands of lawsuits, versus being asked by that copyright holder “to promote this feature, or that feature” when soliciting clients for their cases (here, I am specifically referring to anonymous settlements), or being asked or pressured to “suggest to your clients that they do settlement negotiations this way, or that way.”
As soon as a copyright holder suggests or asks you to represent your client in a certain way and you comply (against the best interests of your own client), you are no longer representing your client; your client is the copyright troll. You have gone to the ‘dark side’ and risk disbarment or suspension of your law license.
Personally, do I think certain defense attorneys are representing the copyright trolls? Yes, but I can’t prove it.
“You cannot serve two masters.”
By stating that “you cannot serve two masters,” you might think that I am referring to this from a religious perspective; really, I am referring to it practically from an attorney ethics perspective. An attorney cannot serve two clients (a copyright troll and an accused defendant) who are at odds with one another without benefitting one (the troll) at the expense of the other (his client); this is the basis of the ‘conflicts of interest’ ethics rule.
I have seen this question come up many times over the years even in our own practice, and I believe we need to ask ourselves constantly who we are really serving each time we agree to represent an accused defendant.
For me, the question of “what is in the best interest of my client” is always the first question I ask when deciding what to do for them (even when I am on the phone with them before they are my client, even if I lose them as a client to someone else by telling them something they didn’t want to hear, or by telling them something trying to disentangle (=”correct a lie”) something they were told by another attorney).
When interacting with copyright trolls, I have always been keenly aware of the weight and leverage they wield, especially when I am representing multiple clients against the same copyright holder. I have always been careful not to give in to demands that suggest how to represent my clients against a particular copyright troll, and it becomes a “FULL STOP” when their suggestions are not in the best interests of my clients (future or current). Many of those experiences have become subjects of articles that I’ve written (as they have happened) on these copyright trolls and the defense attorneys who serve them as settlement factories over the years.
I have had plaintiff attorneys try to pressure me to represent my clients one way or another, and I have always flatly refused to comply with their demand, even dropping an entire copyright troll for months or years at a time (and refusing to represent clients against them) at both my own financial peril, and at the peril of the accused defendants who would have been hurt if I took them as clients.
- John Steele and Prenda was one example where I refused to represent clients against them for a time. John Steele ended up in prison.
- Malibu Media, LLC had certain attorneys who I refused to represent clients against.
- The movie industry birthed a number of attorneys who I refused to represent clients against. They were acting unethically, they wanted my participation in their scheme, and I was unwilling to go along with it, so I stopped representing clients against them.
- Most recently, a few years ago, after seeing what the Ansys attorney was doing with his lawsuit, for years, I stopped representing clients against them.
Each time something like this happened, I needed to take a step back understanding that 1) our law firm would take a severe hit because we wouldn’t be representing clients against a particular copyright holder who is filing lawsuits against hundreds or thousands of clients, many of whom would have become clients of our law firm. I also was keenly aware that 2) other settlement factory attorneys would continue to serve up their own clients to these copyright trolls.
However, avoiding being ‘compromised’ as an unethical attorney, versus running a law firm “where we could each sleep at night knowing we did the best to protect our client’s interests” has kept our law firm alive, vibrant, and kicking now 16 years later since we opened our doors in 2010.
I think that our law firm has had to make some tough decisions over the years, especially because the clients we have served are the same clients that have been caught in the web of the copyright trolls’ scheme.
But my best advice for any defendant involved in one of these cases — even when speaking to our law firm — is to ask yourself:
- “Does this attorney actually care about me? Or am I just another defendant just like hundreds of others that have come before me?”
- Then ask yourself, “Where is the loyalty of this attorney? If I became his client, would I become the person to whom he is loyal in representing me? Or does he care more about his own pockets, his own money, pushing me to be yet another sacrifice to his real client?”
Settling When You Shouldn’t — “Don’t Feed the Trolls.”
Settlement factories aren’t defending you; they’re greasing the wheels for Strike 3, Ansys — whoever — to keep other trolls’ lawsuits profitable for their own settlement law firms. Every quick, fat settlement funds the next subpoena blast, luring hundreds of new potential settlements. “This arrangement creates a ‘cottage industry,’ where the so-called defense attorney and the plaintiff attorney (who are supposed to be opponents) are allies for profit. Settlement factory attorneys are part of the problem of copyright trolling; they are not part of the solution, and the only one that gets hurt is the accused defendant.” https://www.torrentlawyer.com/beware-settlement-factory-attorneys/
There are circumstances where a Defendant should settle, but there are circumstances where they should NOT settle. An attorney who tells every person to settle whether they did it or not is running a settlement mill. “I have had too many run-ins with these attorneys and their methods, and all I can say is that they are part of the problem, not the solution.” https://www.torrentlawyer.com/weretrolls-turnkey-settlement-factories/
If you’re facing one of these lawsuits, contact my office. We’ll decode your lawsuit, analyze the risks and rewards of each way to approach the lawsuit, decide if it makes sense to defend the claims against you or settle (too often, it makes more sense to defend and NOT to settle), and then we’ll ask whether it makes sense to use us as your attorney, or whether another attorney would be a better fit to properly do what you have decided is in your best interests.
Originally published February 2026. Updates on specific trolls at Cashman Law Firm.