Corporate Attorney

$90–150/hrrate as listed

micro1 is contracting US-licensed corporate attorneys to review, annotate, and stress-test AI-generated legal content across corporate, litigation, bankruptcy, and compliance matters. Work is remote, project-based, and paid hourly in an observed $90–150/hr range depending on jurisdiction, seniority, and project scope.

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

What the work looks like

You will spend most of your time reading model output and deciding whether it would survive a partner's review. That means checking whether a drafted provision actually allocates risk the way it claims, whether a cited standard exists, whether a bankruptcy timeline is right, and whether a compliance conclusion holds under the governing statute. Corrections matter more than scores: the useful deliverable is a rewritten passage plus a short explanation of why the original reasoning failed.

The other half is generative. You will author realistic scenarios — a disputed earn-out, a preference-payment analysis, a conflicted board approval, a Reg FD question — along with research memos and hypotheticals that expose where models reason poorly. You may also help write annotation guidelines and rubrics that other attorneys apply, and occasionally join calls with engineers and program leads to explain why a legal distinction that looks cosmetic is not.

What the screen looks for

Verifiable credentials. JD from an accredited US law school and an active bar license in at least one US jurisdiction; expect to name the jurisdiction and bar number.
Substantive depth. 3–15 years in litigation, corporate transactions, bankruptcy, or compliance, described at the level of specific deal or matter mechanics rather than practice-area labels.
Evaluation judgment. Whether you can distinguish a confidently wrong legal conclusion from a defensible one you happen to disagree with, and whether your feedback is specific enough to act on.
Writing under constraint. Clear, structured prose that holds up when compressed into a rubric or annotation field.

Judicial clerkships, law-teaching experience, and law journal editorial work are all treated as meaningful signals here — they correlate with the reasoning-transparency the work demands.

Logistics

Remote, US only, contractor engagement. Work is largely asynchronous with periodic sync calls; hours are flexible but projects typically ask for a stated weekly commitment, often part-time alongside an existing practice. No prior AI or machine-learning experience is required or expected. Volume fluctuates with client project cycles, so treat this as variable rather than guaranteed hours, and confirm any conflicts or outside-activity obligations with your firm or bar before starting.

What they look for

legal research
legal document analysis
legal drafting
us corporate law
litigation
bankruptcy law
compliance
legal annotation
editorial skills
legal writing
legal reasoning
analytical skills
attention to detail
verbal communication
written communication
collaboration
instructional skills
quality assurance
guideline development
translating complex information

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.

Do you hold a Juris Doctor degree from an ABA-accredited law school in the United States?
JD from accredited US law school · required
Do you currently hold an active license to practice law in at least one US state or federal jurisdiction?
Active US bar license · required
Do you have at least 3 years of substantive professional experience in litigation, corporate law, bankruptcy, or compliance?
3+ years substantive legal experience · required
Are you a US-based independent practitioner or sole proprietor able to work as a contractor on a US project?
US-based · required
Have you served as a judicial clerk (state or federal)?
Judicial clerkship experience · preferred
Have you taught law students or legal professionals, or developed instructional materials for legal training?
Legal teaching or training experience · preferred

0 of 6 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 11 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 you can articulate sophisticated legal reasoning in plain terms and ground abstract doctrine in concrete fact patterns—critical for drafting realistic scenarios and training AI on applied law.
A strong answer: A strong answer names the specific legal domain (e.g., securities law, M&A structuring, discovery disputes), explains the controlling legal principles and why they mattered, and shows how you navigated competing interests or ambiguities in the law itself, not just procedure.
Where people lose it: Candidates often recite case names and procedural steps without explaining the underlying legal tension or showing they made a judgment call—which suggests they annotate by rote rather than reason through ambiguity.