Saltzman & Johnson Law Corporation reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2023-02-08. The breach occurred from 3/7/2022 to 4/19/2022. 1 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 1
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Feb 8, 2023 → Mar 3, 2023. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_5b02968d5fdc4a31 · 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.
CA MT
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Mar 7, 2022
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Mar 7, 2022
Reported by CALIFORNIA AG filing
Saltzman & Johnson Law Corporation reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2023-02-08. The breach occurred from 3/7/2022 to 4/19/2022. 1 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 1
Saltzman & Johnson Law Corporation notified clients of a data breach after an employee's email account was compromised via phishing on March 7, 2022. The unauthorized party used the account to propagate a phishing campaign. Personal information potentially accessed included names, addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and driver's license numbers. The firm engaged forensic experts, implemented additional authentication and training, and offered credit monitoring services.
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.