Richard D. Jones, A Professional Law Corporation reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2024-08-22 and was reported on 2026-06-18. 1 Indiana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 1
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filed Jun 18, 2026. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_a01359a2fdff42bb · 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.
Identity (basic) · Government ID
CA IN
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Aug 22, 2024
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Nov 3, 2024
Reported by CALIFORNIA AG filing
Richard D. Jones, A Professional Law Corporation reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2024-08-22 and was reported on 2026-06-18. 1 Indiana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 1
Richard D. Jones, A Professional Law Corporation (dba Jones Mayer) notified the California Attorney General of an incident where an unauthorized actor accessed certain systems and copied files between August 22, 2024, and November 7, 2024. The company became aware of suspicious activity on November 3, 2024. The investigation confirmed that names and other personal information were involved. The company has secured its systems, is reviewing policies, and is offering credit monitoring to affected individuals.
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.