Wiggin and Dana LLP reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-02-28 and was reported on 2025-08-19. 5 Indiana residents were affected. 278 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 278
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Aug 19, 2025 → Oct 14, 2025. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_de44d9489922485e · merge_method deterministic · confidence 95%
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.
IN NH
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Feb 28, 2025
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Mar 1, 2025
Reported by NEW HAMPSHIRE AG filing
Wiggin and Dana LLP reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-02-28 and was reported on 2025-08-19. 5 Indiana residents were affected. 278 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 278
Wiggin and Dana, LLP notified the New Hampshire Attorney General of a data event affecting one NH resident. Unauthorized access occurred Feb 28-Mar 1, 2025, via compromised employee credentials. Data exposed: name and SSN. Notice sent May 2, 2025. Response included law enforcement notification and 12 months of 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.