General Counsel

$90–130/hrrate as listed

micro1 is contracting experienced in-house counsel to run simulated contract negotiations and redlining exercises that train and evaluate frontier AI models on transactional work. The work is part-time, remote, and centers on tech-transaction paper — MSAs, NDAs, DPAs, APAs, SPAs — plus building the grading criteria used to score model output.

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

Most of your time is spent producing and judging contract work product. You will redline counterparty drafts as if you were representing a defined client with defined risk tolerances, then document why each edit was made — the fallback position, the walk-away, the commercial logic behind an indemnity cap or a data-processing carve-out. Alongside that, you will review model-generated redlines and negotiation responses and explain precisely where the AI's reading of a clause is wrong, incomplete, or technically correct but commercially naive.

A second strand is framework building. Rather than only grading, you will help write the playbooks and rubrics other reviewers use: objective criteria for what counts as a competent limitation-of-liability negotiation, how to score a missed assignment clause, when a model's cautious answer is appropriate versus unhelpful. Expect iteration with research and product staff on guidelines, edge cases, and annotation disagreements.

What the platform screens for

Verifiable credentials. J.D. from an ABA-accredited school and active bar admission in at least one U.S. jurisdiction; expect to name the jurisdiction and status.
Real transactional reps. Three-plus years of counsel-level work negotiating tech-sector agreements. Screens probe specific clauses and specific positions you have taken, not general familiarity.
Judgment you can articulate. The differentiator is explaining reasoning in writing — a reviewer who can only say "this is wrong" produces unusable training signal.
Consistency. Whether you apply the same standard across similar fact patterns, which is what rubric authorship depends on.

Prior legal-tech or AI training exposure is preferred but not required. Corporate firm background in M&A or private-equity fund formation is a plus.

Logistics

Contractor, fully remote, part-time and asynchronous — work is typically drawn from a queue with turnaround windows rather than fixed hours. Observed pay for this listing runs $90–130/hr, varying with credentials, specialty depth, and task type; rates are as observed and not guaranteed. Many contributors treat this as a 5–15 hour weekly commitment alongside in-house or firm practice. Conflicts screening and confidentiality terms apply.

What they look for

Playbook
Contract Negotiation
Contract Drafting
Contract Management

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. from an American Bar Association (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. state, territory, or federal jurisdiction, with an active license?
Active bar admission in U.S. jurisdiction · required
Do you have a minimum of 3 years of professional experience as counsel focused specifically on technology transactions, including negotiating and redlining agreements such as MSAs, NDAs, DPAs, APAs, or SPAs?
3+ years tech transaction counsel experience · required
Have you had prior exposure to or experience with AI tools, legal technology platforms, or involvement in training or data evaluation initiatives?
Prior exposure to AI, legal tech, or training initiatives · preferred

0 of 4 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 13 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 have genuine depth in tech contracting mechanics (data flows, indemnification, limitation of liability, IP ownership) rather than generic M&A or corporate work, and whether you can articulate the business drivers behind legal positions.
A strong answer: Name a real transaction type (MSA, DPA, or NDA), identify 2–3 substantive negotiation points (e.g., data residency requirements, liability caps for data breach, IP ownership of derivatives), explain what each party wanted and why, and describe your specific contribution to resolving the tension—not just 'I reviewed it' but the actual redline or argument you made.
Where people lose it: Describing contract review in vague terms ('I managed the legal review') without naming the contract type, the business context, or a single concrete clause you touched; or conflating tech transactions with general corporate M&A experience without demonstrating fluency in data, SaaS, or IP provisions.