Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd. reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2020-12-11. The breach occurred from 8/28/2020 to 9/14/2020. 1 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 1
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filed Dec 11, 2020. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_05b785e1d9da41c1 · merge_method deterministic · confidence 100%
Discovered → first regulatory filing
Time between earliest and latest filing
Not recorded for this incident
Discovery variance · Leak precedence · Materiality delta · SEC filing delay — no leak-site claim in this cluster; no SEC 8-K in this cluster; needs two dated filings.
ME MT
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Aug 28, 2020
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Sep 28, 2020
Reported by MAINE AG filing
Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd. reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2020-12-11. The breach occurred from 8/28/2020 to 9/14/2020. 1 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 1
Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd reported an internal system breach occurring between August 28, 2020, and September 14, 2020, discovered on September 28, 2020. The incident affected 3,743 individuals, including one Maine resident. The breach involved the acquisition of names and driver's license numbers. The firm notified affected individuals in writing on December 11, 2020, and provided 12 months of credit monitoring and identity restoration services through Kroll.
Affected (this filing): 3,743
About this clustering
DisclosureLens links filings into incidents through layered matchers: deterministic rules (same source document, multistate filings of one breach, tight-window same-victim pairs), a weighted-similarity scorer for cross-source candidates, and an operator review queue for everything uncertain. Each link records its own method and confidence — shown per filing in the timeline below. The system defaults to NOT merging when uncertain, because a false merge (collapsing two unrelated breaches) is more harmful than a false split (showing related filings separately); uncertain pairs route to human review instead of auto-merging. Filing summaries shown in the timeline are AI-generated extracts — verify each against its linked source.