Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala P.A. reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2024-09-30. The breach occurred on 11/21/2023. 13 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 13
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filed Sep 30, 2024. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_1294e25076104ac3 · 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.
MT NH
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Nov 21, 2023
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Nov 21, 2023
Reported by NEW HAMPSHIRE AG filing
Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala P.A. reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2024-09-30. The breach occurred on 11/21/2023. 13 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 13
Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala P.A. notified the New Hampshire Attorney General of a network intrusion discovered on November 21, 2023. The incident affected a limited number of systems and potentially exposed personal information of one New Hampshire resident. The firm secured its network, engaged forensic investigators, and reported the incident to law enforcement. Notification was sent to the affected individual on September 30, 2024, offering complimentary credit monitoring.
Affected (this filing): 1
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.