M&A Corporate & Securities Attorney

$80–100/hrrate as listed

Review and grade AI-generated work product on merger agreements, securities disclosure, and deal-process questions, flagging where a model's reasoning would fail in practice. micro1 screens through an AI-led interview, and observed pay for this category has run $80–100/hr on project-based engagements.

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 are asked to behave like a reviewing partner, not a survey respondent. A typical task hands you a prompt a corporate client or junior associate might realistically ask — how a MAC clause interacts with a pandemic carve-out, whether a proposed financing triggers Section 5 gun-jumping concerns, how to structure a Rule 144A offering, what a fiduciary-out should say in a public-target merger agreement — along with one or more model answers. You judge whether the analysis is correct, whether the drafting would survive opposing counsel, and whether the model has quietly invented a statute, a case, or a market convention.

Day-to-day output falls into a few buckets:

Scoring competing model responses against a rubric, with written justification for the ranking
Rewriting a flawed answer into the version you would actually send, so the model has a gold-standard target
Authoring original prompts from your own deal experience, including the traps that catch non-specialists
Adversarial testing: pushing a model until it overstates a safe harbor, misapplies Delaware law, or gives advice that ignores disclosure obligations

What the platform screens for

micro1's screening is an asynchronous AI-led interview. It probes depth by following up — a general answer about representations and warranties will draw a question about survival periods, sandbagging, or how RWI changes the negotiation. Expect to name transaction types you have personally run, describe your role, and explain the reasoning behind a judgment call rather than the conclusion alone. Reviewers also look for evaluation temperament: whether you can articulate why an answer is wrong in a way another lawyer could act on, and whether you distinguish a genuine legal error from a stylistic preference or a good-faith jurisdictional variation.

Logistics

Fully remote and mostly asynchronous, with work drawn from a task queue. Contributors commonly commit 10–20 hours per week, though volume moves with project cycles and can pause between engagements. Engagements are contractor-based and typically require a bar license in good standing plus verifiable transactional experience; you should be comfortable working outside a firm's conflicts and privilege infrastructure, since tasks are hypothetical and no client relationship is formed.

What they look for

m&a transaction analysis
corporate governance
securities law
legal risk assessment
due diligence
virtual data rooms
contract review
legal writing
analytical reasoning
written communication
ai-assisted legal tools
professional judgment

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.

Are you currently licensed to practice law in good standing in the United States, with no pending disciplinary proceedings or license restrictions?
Active bar license · required
Have you spent at least three years working directly on M&A transactions, corporate financings, or securities offerings in a legal capacity (law firm associate, counsel, in-house, or solo practitioner)?
Three years M&A or securities transaction experience · required
Are you willing to work on confidential, hypothetical legal prompts and model answers that cannot be shared as portfolio items or references, and that form no client relationship?
Confidentiality and hypothetical work · required
Can you commit to a minimum of 8 hours per week of asynchronous work, with flexibility to scale up or down based on platform demand cycles, for the next three to six months?
Realistic availability · preferred
Can you name at least two U.S. jurisdictions or practice areas (e.g., Delaware corporation law, federal securities law, New York law) in which you have substantial transactional experience and feel confident evaluating analysis?
Jurisdiction focus · preferred

0 of 5 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 15 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 *hands-on* transaction experience—not just knowledge—and can distinguish between statutory interpretation and the commercial reasoning that shapes transactional drafting.
A strong answer: The answer names a concrete deal (type, parties if public, your role), describes a specific structural choice (e.g., rep survival period, escrow size, carve-out scope, or financing condition placement), and explains the trade-off it resolved—risk allocation, cost, or timing—rather than just reciting what the documents said.
Where people lose it: Candidates describe deal types generically or recount what the senior partner decided, rather than articulating a judgment they personally made and the reasoning it rested on. This reveals secondhand knowledge, not judgment.