Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2023-02-02. The breach occurred from 1/28/2022 to 2/18/2022. 3 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 3
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filed Feb 2, 2023. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_7fe1a66b7fd448e3 · merge_method llm · confidence 44%
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.
PII · Government ID
ME MT
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Jan 28, 2022
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Sep 20, 2022
Reported by MAINE AG filing
Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2023-02-02. The breach occurred from 1/28/2022 to 2/18/2022. 3 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 3
Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP, a law firm, reported a data breach affecting two Maine residents. The breach, which occurred between January 28, 2022, and February 18, 2022, was an external system breach (hacking) discovered on September 20, 2022. The compromised information included names and Social Security numbers. The firm notified the affected individuals on February 2, 2023, and offered credit monitoring, fraud consultation, and identity theft restoration services through Experian.
Affected (this filing): 2
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.