Litigation Expert

$90–100/hrrate as listed

Mercor is hiring senior litigators to design civil litigation scenarios, write reference work product, and author rubrics used to evaluate AI systems. Work is split into a US track (FRCP, Federal Rules of Evidence, state analogs) and an International track (English CPR, ICC and LCIA arbitration rules); qualification in either is sufficient.

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 build self-contained litigation "worlds" — a fact pattern, a procedural posture, a document set, and a task an AI system is asked to perform. That might be drafting a motion to compel against a deficient production, assessing privilege and work-product claims across a custodian set, sequencing depositions in a multi-defendant commercial dispute, or preparing a section of a trial memorandum. For each scenario you write the reference output a competent senior litigator would produce, then author the rubric that explains what separates that answer from a plausible-sounding one.

Scenario coverage spans pre-trial discovery, motion practice, trial strategy, settlement negotiation, and arbitration procedure, plus class and complex litigation and appellate work. Many tasks involve realistic tooling context — e-discovery platforms such as Relativity or Everlaw, litigation management systems, deposition and trial prep software — because the point is to test judgment in the conditions litigators actually operate under.

What the platform screens for

Verifiable matter ownership. Screens probe specific cases you ran or contributed to: posture, your role, what you filed, how it resolved. Generalities read as thin.
Procedural precision. Expect follow-ups on rule mechanics — Rule 26(b)(1) proportionality, Rule 37 sanctions posture, FRE 702 and 803 applications, or CPR Part 31 disclosure and ICC Article 22 case management on the international track.
Rubric instinct. Can you articulate, in writing, why one answer is wrong in a way a non-lawyer grader could apply consistently? This matters more than credential prestige.
Discrimination between recall and judgment. The stated goal is tasks that defeat bar-exam-level pattern matching. You will be asked how you would do that.

Logistics and pay

Fully remote and asynchronous, contractor engagement, project-based. Contributors typically commit 10–20 hours per week with flexibility on scheduling, though throughput expectations are real and deadlines are per-batch. Observed rates for this listing sit at $90–100/hr; actual offers depend on track, credential, and calibration performance, and are not guaranteed. Onboarding usually includes a paid or unpaid calibration task before sustained volume is assigned.

What they look for

JD with active bar admission, or international equivalent (Barrister/Solicitor with advocacy rights)
5+ years as a litigator or trial attorney at a major litigation firm or in-house litigation department
Direct ownership of complex commercial litigation matters, with trial or arbitration experience
Working command of FRCP and Federal Rules of Evidence, or English CPR and ICC/LCIA arbitration rules
Fluency with e-discovery and litigation management tooling (Relativity, Everlaw, or equivalents)
Prior rubric, training-material, or CLE authorship (preferred)

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 law degree (JD, LLB, or equivalent) and are you admitted to practice law in at least one jurisdiction (US bar, Solicitor/Barrister admission, or equivalent with advocacy rights)?
Bar admission or equivalent advocacy credential · required
Have you spent at least 5 years working as a litigator or trial attorney, whether in private firm, in-house, or government litigation roles?
5+ years litigation experience · required
Have you personally owned and driven the strategy on at least one complex commercial litigation matter, including experience with either trial, arbitration, or major motion practice?
Complex commercial litigation ownership · required
Have you used Relativity, Everlaw, or comparable modern e-discovery platforms in actual litigation matters?
E-discovery platform fluency (Relativity or Everlaw) · preferred
Do you have active litigation experience under the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence?
US Federal Rules expertise · preferred
Have you litigated or practiced under English Civil Procedure Rules or international arbitration rules (ICC, LCIA, or similar)?
International procedure experience (CPR, LCIA, ICC) · preferred

0 of 6 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 actually run a matter end-to-end and can articulate how litigation strategy shifts across discovery, motion practice, and trial phases, not just recite procedure.
A strong answer: The answer names a specific matter (industry, opposing party profile, rough stakes), identifies 2–3 moments where discovery findings, motion outcomes, or settlement leverage changed the case direction, and explains the strategic choice made at each turn—e.g., why certain discovery was pursued, when to move for summary judgment, when settlement math shifted.
Where people lose it: Describing a matter in purely procedural terms ('we did discovery, filed motions, went to trial') without connecting facts to strategic choices, or naming a matter but only recounting their own discrete task rather than showing they drove case direction.