Pearlman, Brown, & Wax LLP reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2026-03-27 and was reported on 2026-06-09. 1 Indiana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 1
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filed Jun 9, 2026. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_61535fb5a2494cac · 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.
Government ID · Identity (basic) · Health (basic)
CA IN
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Mar 27, 2026
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Mar 27, 2026
Reported by CALIFORNIA AG filing
Pearlman, Brown, & Wax LLP reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2026-03-27 and was reported on 2026-06-09. 1 Indiana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 1
Pearlman, Brown & Wax LLP notified the California AG of a data security incident discovered on March 27, 2026. An unauthorized individual gained access to the firm's network, potentially accessing files containing names, Social Security numbers, and medical/treatment information related to workers' compensation claims. The firm took the network offline, engaged cybersecurity experts, and changed passwords. Affected individuals are offered 12 months of credit monitoring and fraud assistance.
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.