Quick Update on the BRB Risk Compensation Survey:

I’m quite pleased to see continued strong interest in our annual salary survey! I wanted to drop a quick note with a clarification/recommendation, based on a note from one firm.

Short version: Yes, you can totally have HR reach out directly to engage with this survey and submit data on behalf of the firm.

This comes up a few times each year. It’s not unusual for someone in risk to pass the survey on to HR. It’s fine to have an HR analyst fill things out. Just have them note their own title/email in the exercise, which will used solely to provide them with the final report.

Alternatively, from time to time a firm reaches out wanting to provide data via Excel vs the survey form. I’m happy to work with organizations to accommodate, so long as we’re able to collect the specific comp characteristics we’re looking for. Just sent those folks my email address (responses to the daily update go back directly to me) or the contact form on the blog to get in touch.

Thanks. And now back to your regular updates.

 

Talking to clients, or potential clients, or about work in law firm conference rooms containing an LG televisions? It may be prudent to investigate the implications of this news: “LG TVs caught spying even when offline or on standby” —

• “Smart TVs are built to siphon your data and sell it to advertisers or whomever else wants to know your viewing habits. LG, a screenmaker already coming off of a monitor adware scandal, has reportedly given its screens the ability to capture audio from your living room, even if the TV seems like it’s turned off.”
• “LG’s TVs can be sending this data even if the screen is off, according to the YouTubers’ findings. Gizmodo reached out to LG for comment, and we’ll update this post if we hear back. LG’s privacy policy explicitly gives the company consent to send data to advertising partners or law enforcement. LG also says it ‘may collect audio, electronic, visual, or similar information, such as video recordings’ through its ThinkQ app.”
• “The amount of data LG’s screens can log is staggering. The video describes how, with a few changes, these TVs are apparently able to identify devices using the home network, even those that aren’t actually connected to the TV itself. That includes the ability to identify several smartwatches and phones all on the same network.”
• “Security researchers who analyzed Gamer’s Nexus findings suggested that users disconnect their LG TVs from the internet. That’s not necessarily out of privacy considerations but more so for all the potential vulnerabilities hackers could potentially exploit.”
• “The bigger problem isn’t necessarily how some ne’er-do-well could hack your home screen to spy on you while it’s off; it’s the fact your data isn’t just used by advertisers. U.S. law enforcement has been caught buying advertising data from data brokers as yet another form of surveillance.”
  “That data can be linked directly to individuals, where such voice transcripts would be invaluable information for any law enforcement or government agency keeping tabs on U.S. residents. LG’s data collection may be especially egregious. Still, every TV owner is essentially giving up their privacy for the sake of buying a cheaper screen.”

Do take note that if your firm does use LG TVs, you may have a duty to inform everyone in the room (and maybe even on the network) where this happens. (Will let you ask your lawyers to navigate the implications. No legal advice here.) From LG’s Terms:

• “CONSENT REQUIREMENT: You acknowledge and agree that it is your sole responsibility to obtain all necessary consents from any third parties whose voices may be captured by the Product and to notify household members and guests that their voices may be captured and processed, in compliance with applicable wiretapping, eavesdropping, and privacy laws. If anyone does not consent, you should disable the microphone or voice features in the settings. LGE disclaims any liability for your failure to obtain such consent or provide such notification.”

 

“Carrot Top Accuser Wants Comic’s Lawyer Banned From Explicit Video Lawsuit – Claims Conflict of Interest” —

• “Billboard chart singer Brian Evans is demanding that Carrot Top’s lawyer be banned from their explosive legal battle, claiming the comedian’s attorney is caught in a conflict of interest that threatens the integrity of the case, RadarOnline.com can reveal. Evans has filed a motion seeking to disqualify attorney Ronnie J. Bitman and his firm, Bitman O’Brien, PLLC, from representing the comic, whose real name is Scott Thompson.”
• “According to court documents obtained by Radar, Evans claims Bitman is simultaneously representing Chad Fitzgerald, a defendant in a separate lawsuit Evans filed against Fitzgerald and his law firm, in a pending federal appeal – while also defending Carrot Top in the bombshell case.”
• “Evans argues the overlapping representation creates a major problem since Carrot Top’s defense could eventually require his attorney to investigate Fitzgerald’s conduct or take positions that could potentially hurt Fitzgerald’s interests. The filing claims Carrot Top may need to obtain documents from Fitzgerald, subpoena or depose him, challenge his account, or attempt to place responsibility on Fitzgerald or another person for the later handling of disputed settlement documents.”
• “Evans argues Bitman cannot independently advise Carrot Top about taking those steps while simultaneously owing Fitzgerald duties of loyalty and confidentiality.”
• “Evans wants Bitman and his entire firm immediately prohibited from filing motions, conducting discovery, attending hearings, participating in depositions, or otherwise acting as Carrot Top’s counsel while the judge determines whether they should be disqualified.”
• “The latest courtroom clash comes amid Evans’ disturbing allegations about his former personal and professional relationship with the Las Vegas entertainer.”
• “Evans is now asking the judge to disqualify Bitman and his firm or schedule an expedited evidentiary hearing to determine whether the alleged conflict prevents them from continuing to represent Carrot Top.”

“Fish & Richardson Slams IP DQ Bid As Possibly Manufactured” —

• “LVMH urged a Texas federal court to reject a bid to boot Fish & Richardson PC from defending the luxury goods business against an infringement lawsuit over patents for nonfungible token display technology, saying the company behind the suit may have tried to ‘manufacture’ a conflict to disqualify the firm.”
• “LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE argued Monday that Watch Skins’ disqualification motion should be rejected based on its own misconduct, which included oversharing information with the firm and cold-calling a firm attorney.”
• “‘The record demonstrates, at every turn, that Watch Skins — not Fish & Richardson PC — is the party that acted improperly,’ LVMH said. ‘Watch Skins ignored multiple warnings not to share confidential information, ignored Fish’s decision to decline representation, and then, through a sophisticated co-founder represented by an experienced IP litigator, unilaterally transmitted information no one at Fish had requested.'”
• “Watch Skins alleges Paris-based LVMH and three other companies under the LVMH umbrella, including Swiss watchmaker TAG Heuer SA, infringed three of its patents on NFT smartwatch display technology. Watch Skins developed a platform that enables users to display their NFTs.”
• “LVMH said that while it could be that Watch Skins meant to ‘manufacture a conflict,’ its intent does not matter, because the firm carefully followed the rule regarding a lawyer’s duty to a prospective client. LVMH said the American Bar Association’s ‘safe harbor of Rule 1.18(d), now adopted in Texas, exists precisely to address this situation.'”
• “LVMH said it was contacted twice by Watch Skins, once via its website in December 2023 and a second time in July 2024 through a cold call to Fish & Richardson attorney Jennifer Huang, who is not listed as counsel in the instant case. LVMH said Watch Skins’ motion to disqualify the firm ‘misleads the court’ by not mentioning the website inquiry.”
• “Fish & Richardson’s website warns prospective clients against providing any confidential or sensitive information, but Watch Skins did it anyway, LVMH said. After receiving the website form from Watch Skins, the firm declined representation because it had a history of representing LVMH and warned Watch Skins again not to ‘share confidences.'”
• “‘This attorney also took steps to limit exposure to confidential information: requesting only specific categories of information necessary to screen a potential contingency representation and waiting for conflict clearance before disseminating any information received,’ LVMH said. Despite already being represented by other counsel and in disregard of Huang’s ‘limiting instructions,’ Watch Skins again ‘overshared,’ LVMH said. ‘The attorney promptly removed the additional information from her inbox and declined representation,’ LVMH said, adding that Huang has been screened from the matter.”
• “‘No prospective client should be allowed to poison a client’s law firm by arguing a conflict should be imputed under these circumstances,’ LVMH said, later adding that ‘Watch Skins has no explanation for waiting 15 months into active litigation before taking the drastic step of seeking Fish’s disqualification; it has waived the request.'”
• “LVMH said ‘this is a textbook case’ for the safe harbor exception spelled out in the ABA and Texas rules.”