Best Practices Guide to Safely Handling Sensitive Intake and Investigation Questions with AI (Sexual Abuse Intakes and Cases)
This guide provides recommended best practices for Artificial Intelligence (AI) handling sensitive intake and investigation questions related to sexual abuse matters.
Sexual abuse cases involve highly personal and sensitive information. The way questions are structured, delivered, recorded, and reviewed can influence client comfort, documentation clarity, and operational consistency.
These recommendations are intended to help legal teams, intake professionals, and system administrators implement structured workflows that prioritize:
- Respectful and trauma-informed communication
- Thoughtful information collection
- Privacy-aware data handling
- Clear documentation processes
- Responsible use of automation tools
This guide is informational in nature. It outlines operational considerations and suggested practices that firms may evaluate and implement based on their own policies, compliance requirements, and professional judgment.
Each firm is responsible for determining the appropriate procedures, safeguards, and review processes that align with applicable laws, ethical obligations, and internal standards.
Core Safety Principles
Always confirm claimant is 18+ before asking sensitive questions. Age gating is required to prevent CSAM risk.
Use structured, category-based classification only with numbers or letters via multiple choice options. Please do NOT use freeform and open ended questions, which could unintentionally create CSAM content and risk.
Separate age-at-incident from act classification.
Never collect detailed sexual narratives via AI. Flag it for a human and perform human handoff to a live rep.
Immediately escalate minor-at-time-of-incident cases to a human.
Example 1: Open Narrative Request
❌ Risky: “Can you describe exactly what the driver did to you?”
✅ Safe: “I’m going to ask a sensitive question related to your potential claim. You may skip this question or request a person at any time. Which category best describes what occurred?
- Inappropriate touching
- Attempted sexual assault
- Sexual intercourse
- Exposure
- Other”
Example 2: Anatomical Follow-Up
❌ Risky: “Was the penetration vaginal or anal?”
✅ Safe: “For case eligibility purposes, does this fall under:
- Attempted sexual assault
- Sexual intercourse
- Other”
If minor-at-time is indicated: Escalate to human intake immediately.
Example 3: Age + Act Combined
❌ Risky: “How old were you when he sexually assaulted you and how exactly did it happen?”
✅ Safe Step 1: “Did the incident occur when you were:
- Under 18
- 18 or older”
Step 2: “Which category best describes what occurred?” (Use structured options only)
If ‘Under 18’ selected: Record classification and escalate.
❌ Do not ask follow-up sexual detail questions.
Automatic Escalation Triggers
• Minor-at-time-of-incident indicated
• User begins detailed sexual narrative
• Anatomical detail is required
• Emotional distress is expressed
• User requests to speak to a human
Prohibited AI Behaviors
• Asking for explicit sexual descriptions
• Rephrasing or restating sexual acts involving minors
• Asking mechanical or anatomical probing questions
• Combining minor status + explicit sexual detail in AI-generated responses
Implementation Rule: If incident_age < 18 OR narrative detail begins → Stop generative questioning and escalate to a trained human intake specialist. No exceptions.
Having AI continue that line of questioning can significantly elevate reputational and banning risk for all involved.
Final Considerations
Sensitive intake and investigation processes require ongoing attention, training, and internal review. As case types evolve and regulatory standards change, firms should periodically reassess their procedures to ensure alignment with current legal, ethical, and operational expectations.
These best practice recommendations are intended to support thoughtful implementation of structured workflows. Each firm should evaluate its own risk tolerance, compliance obligations, staffing model, and client communication standards when determining how to operationalize sensitive intake processes.
Technology can assist in organizing information and supporting consistent documentation. However, policies, supervision, and professional judgment remain central to responsible case handling.
If questions arise regarding implementation, compliance, or workflow configuration, firms should consult qualified legal counsel or appropriate internal compliance personnel.
The objective is to maintain a structured, respectful, and privacy-conscious intake process that aligns with your firm’s standards and professional responsibilities.