New Zealand has a new legal technology venture, but this one is not promising to shave another 20 minutes off a lawyer’s drafting time.
Tika, the sexual harm reporting and legal support service co-founded by former journalist Alison Mau and lawyer Zoë Lawton, (pictured) has launched publicly in New Zealand, introducing a model that combines AI-assisted reporting with free legal representation.
Developed with technology company V1 Innovation, the platform is designed to help survivors report sexual harm confidentially, obtain legal advice and identify whether others have independently reported similar conduct involving the same alleged offender.
Its most significant feature may be its legal structure. Rather than operating simply as a reporting website, Tika provides services through Tika Legal, an incorporated law firm. Eligible users enter a lawyer-client relationship when they register.
The development brings together three areas that rarely fit comfortably into the same conversation: artificial intelligence, access to justice and the exceptionally sensitive handling of sexual harm allegations.
How Tika’s technology works
Tika addresses a familiar problem in sexual harm reporting. Survivors may be reluctant to report an incident because they fear they will not be believed, distrust the reporting process or simply do not know what legal options are available.
The platform allows people to make confidential disclosures independently. Its technology then searches for possible connections between separate reports that may concern the same alleged offender.
The system uses machine learning and a large language model to help its lawyers identify patterns in complex information. It does not use publicly available generative AI chatbots to communicate with survivors.
Tika’s initial threshold is three independently registered clients reporting harm involving the same person. Potential matches are reviewed by lawyers before clients are contacted, and survivors retain control over whether they wish to take further action.
Importantly, the technology does not establish guilt. Its role is to identify possible connections between reports, leaving lawyers to assess the information and advise clients on their options.
A law firm, not simply another reporting platform
One of Tika’s distinguishing features is its legal structure.
Tika operates through a charitable trust and Tika Legal Limited, an incorporated law firm. The trust is responsible for fundraising, marketing and education, while the law firm handles client registrations and provides legal services.
The model is intended to give eligible survivors access to legal advice without the financial barriers that might otherwise discourage them from seeking help.
For lawyers, this is where the initiative becomes particularly interesting. Tika is using technology to help identify potential legal matters, but the service itself remains grounded in the traditional lawyer-client relationship.
Confidentiality, professional obligations and independent legal judgment are central to the model and Tika says its processes have been developed with people who have experienced sexual harm and informed by a Lived Experience Advisory Board.
Its stated objective is to give survivors greater control over the reporting process and any subsequent legal action.
The technology behind the legal service
V1 Innovation, founded by James Boult and Eoghan Neligan, (above) developed the technology and helped establish Tika’s operating model.
The company has previously worked with businesses including One NZ, Sky, Mitre 10 and Fisher Funds.
The challenge with Tika, however, extended beyond building a conventional software product.
Its developers had to consider how confidential information would be collected, how potential matches would be identified, how lawyers would review the information and how a free legal service could be funded sustainably.
The result is an operating model that combines technology, legal services and survivor-controlled decision-making.
V1 believes the approach could eventually have applications in other settings involving serious harm, including workplaces and professional institutions. Any such expansion would require consideration of the applicable legal and privacy requirements.
Change the access-to-justice model?
For a legal profession increasingly preoccupied with AI productivity, Tika raises a different question.
What happens when artificial intelligence is used not simply to make lawyers more efficient, but to make legal representation available to people who might otherwise never seek it?
The potential extends beyond sexual harm reporting. The approach could have relevance to institutional abuse, workplace misconduct and other situations in which separate complainants may have experienced similar conduct without knowing of one another.
But the legal challenges are also substantial.
Protecting confidential information, verifying potential matches, managing conflicts of interest and ensuring that allegations are treated fairly will be essential to the service’s credibility.
Tika’s approach places lawyers between the technology and any action taken. That distinction matters, particularly when the information being processed involves serious allegations and potentially life-changing consequences for everyone concerned.
The immediate test will be whether the platform can deliver its promised legal support safely and sustainably as registrations increase.
Can AI, charitable funding and professional legal representation provide a model for expanding access to justice in other areas?
For once, the interesting legal AI story is not about replacing a junior associates, but about finding a way to provide legal assistance where conventional services have struggled to reach.
