Contract Specialist

$80–100/hrrate as listed

micro1 recruits practicing contract professionals to write and grade AI training data drawn from real commercial drafting and review work. Observed rates for this legal track have run $80–100/hr, billed against submitted and accepted tasks.

Summary, eligibility guidance and screening preparation are prepared by Sidequest from the platform's posting. Check the source listing before applying.

What the work involves

You work through queues of contract-centered tasks that test whether a model can behave like a competent transactional lawyer. A typical session might mean drafting a limitation-of-liability clause against a specified risk allocation, comparing two model redlines of an indemnity provision and explaining which one a client could actually sign, or writing a prompt that exposes a model's tendency to hallucinate a survival period that the agreement never granted. Other tasks ask you to produce the reference answer first — the issues list a reviewing associate would flag in an MSA, a clean summary of assignment and change-of-control restrictions, a defensible position on an ambiguous notice provision — and then score model output against it.

Ratings are not thumbs up or down. Each judgment is paired with written reasoning that a reviewer without your background can follow: which term is wrong, why it matters commercially, what the correct treatment would be. Reviewers weight that reasoning as heavily as the score itself, and vague justifications get tasks sent back.

What the platform screens for

Verifiable transactional experience — the agreement types you've drafted and negotiated, on which side, at what deal size
Depth that survives follow-up: the AI screener will push on a clause you mention and ask how you'd handle a specific counterparty pushback
Whether you can distinguish a genuinely wrong contractual statement from a stylistic preference or a defensible alternative approach
Clear written English under time pressure, since nearly all output is prose

Logistics

Fully remote and asynchronous. You claim tasks when you have time; there are no standing meetings and no assigned shifts. Most contributors treat this as 8–15 hours a week alongside practice, though some campaigns open larger blocks with short deadlines. Expect a calibration period at the start, where early submissions are reviewed closely and pay may be tied to a shorter onboarding batch before you move to the full rate. Work is contractor-based, per-task, with no volume guarantee — campaigns start and stop with client demand.

What they look for

contract drafting
commercial agreements
legal document review
attention to detail
written communication
verbal communication
remote collaboration
legal compliance
industry best practices
legal technology

Before you apply

Would you pass this screen?

Drawn from what this listing actually requires. Answered in your browser — nothing is sent to us, and we do not store your answers.

Have you personally drafted, negotiated, or formally reviewed contracts — not as a junior research task, but as primary responsibility — on the law firm or in-house counsel side?
Transactional contract experience · required
Have you worked on at least three different types of commercial agreements (e.g., MSAs, service contracts, IP licenses, supply agreements, NDAs, employment agreements)?
Depth of agreement exposure · required
Have you advised on or negotiated agreements with a total contract value of at least $5M in a single engagement, or managed a portfolio of agreements where commercial risk allocation was a core responsibility?
Deal complexity · preferred
Are you a licensed attorney in any U.S. state, or do you hold an equivalent professional qualification in contract law outside the U.S.?
Current legal credentials · required

0 of 4 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 10 questions

Matched to what this platform's screening actually measures. Answer each out loud in 60–90 seconds: claim → concrete example → implication.

What it tests: Whether the candidate has genuine hands-on transactional experience at a credible deal size, not generic contract knowledge from templates or training.
A strong answer: Names the agreement type, states deal value or complexity tier, identifies whose counsel they were, and names three specific clauses with the actual disagreement — e.g., warranty scope, liability cap structure, indemnity basket — not just 'payment terms were hard.'
Where people lose it: Describing the agreement in abstract terms ('I negotiated service contracts') or naming only surface-level issues ('both sides wanted favourable terms') rather than the concrete commercial tension that made a clause negotiable.