Corporate Counsel

$100–130/hrrate as listed

micro1 is contracting in-house corporate lawyers to run simulated contract negotiations and redlining exercises that train and evaluate frontier AI models on commercial agreements. You review model output on MSAs, NDAs, and DPAs, write grading criteria, and explain where the model's risk analysis breaks down. Observed pay for this listing is $100–200/hr.

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

The work

Most of your time goes to two things: producing gold-standard redlines and judging the model's attempts at them. You'll be handed a fact pattern — a vendor MSA with a lopsided limitation of liability, an NDA with a residuals clause that swallows the confidentiality obligation, a DPA missing sub-processor flow-down — and asked to negotiate or redline it as you would for a real client, with reasoning captured in writing. Then you'll evaluate what the model produced against your version: did it catch the uncapped indemnity, did it flag the auto-renewal, did it invent a term that doesn't exist in the agreement, did it give commercially unrealistic advice that no counterparty would accept.

The second half of the job is rubric work. Reviewers disagree, and vague criteria make that disagreement invisible. You'll help draft grading frameworks that another lawyer could apply to the same output and land in the same place — distinguishing a stylistic difference from a substantive miss, and a defensible negotiating position from a wrong one. Expect back-and-forth with research and product staff about where guidelines are ambiguous.

What the screen looks for

micro1's process is AI-led and will push on specifics. Expect follow-ups that go one layer deeper than your first answer: which clauses you actually own in a negotiation, how you'd argue a liability cap on the sell side versus the buy side, what you concede first. Generic "I handled commercial contracts" answers stall quickly. The bar is 3+ years of in-house technology transactions work, a J.D. from an ABA-accredited school, and active admission in at least one U.S. jurisdiction. Prior legal-tech or AI training exposure helps but isn't required; the ability to articulate why a redline is right, in writing, matters more.

Logistics

Contractor, part-time, fully remote and largely asynchronous
Typical commitments in this category run 10–20 hrs/week, with flexible scheduling around a day job
Work is task-based and reviewed; volume can fluctuate between project phases
Pay band observed at $100–200/hr for this listing and varies by experience and project — not guaranteed

What they look for

Playbooks
Redlining
Contract Drafting
Contract Negotiation

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 J.D. degree from an ABA-accredited law school?
J.D. from ABA-accredited law school · required
Are you currently admitted to the bar in at least one U.S. jurisdiction and in active, good standing status?
Active U.S. bar admission · required
Do you have a minimum of 3 years of in-house counsel experience focused on technology transactions, including work on MSAs, NDAs, or DPAs?
3+ years in-house tech transactions · required
Have you personally negotiated, drafted, or significantly redlined technology-focused contracts as part of your legal practice?
Tech contract drafting and negotiation · required
Do you have prior exposure to AI, legal technology, or involvement in training or evaluation initiatives?
Prior AI, legal tech, or training exposure · preferred

0 of 5 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 the candidate has real depth in reading tech contracts for hidden exposure, not just surface-level familiarity with MSAs and NDAs.
A strong answer: A specific deal where they spotted a genuine gap—e.g., a DPA gap that created indemnification exposure, or an MSA clause that conflicted with data residency needs—and explained the business consequence and how they fixed it.
Where people lose it: Talking around the transaction, describing only what they learned or what the other side wanted, rather than naming the exact risk they caught and why it mattered.