Public Interest Law (Civil Law / Environmental Law)

$90–100/hrrate as listed

Mercor is hiring practicing public interest attorneys to build evaluation scenarios, reference outputs, and rubrics for AI systems working in civil rights, environmental, and advocacy contexts. Work splits into a US track (federal civil rights statutes, NEPA, CAA/CWA) and an International track (human rights treaties, EU environmental directives), with observed rates of $90–100/hr.

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 "worlds" — self-contained evaluation scenarios that put an AI model in the position of a public interest lawyer and then measure whether it behaves like one. In practice that means writing a fact pattern with real stakes (a Title VII pattern-or-practice claim, a NEPA adequacy challenge to an agency EIS, a CWA citizen suit against a permitted discharger, an asylum claim turning on changed country conditions), specifying the tools and records the model can reach, then drafting the reference output yourself: the brief section, the regulatory comment, the advocacy memo, the strategy note to a coalition partner.

The rubric is the part that carries the most weight. You are documenting how a senior public interest attorney distinguishes a defensible answer from a plausible one — standing and ripeness that actually hold up, remedies that a court can order, an administrative record argument that survives arbitrary-and-capricious review, an awareness of when litigation is the wrong instrument and a rulemaking comment or legislative campaign is the right one. Generic bar-exam recall is the failure mode you are explicitly writing against.

What the platform screens for

Verifiable practice history. Mercor's screen probes named matters, your role in them, forum, posture, and outcome. Five-plus years at a legal aid organization, advocacy nonprofit, or government office (ACLU, Earthjustice, NRDC, Legal Aid Society, a state AG's office, or equivalent) is the baseline.
Depth under follow-up. Expect to be pushed a level past your first answer — on exhaustion requirements, on the difference between facial and as-applied challenges, on what an EPA docket comment actually needs to preserve an issue for later review.
Evaluation judgment. Can you say precisely why one model output is wrong rather than merely unpolished, and can you write that distinction as a rubric criterion someone else could apply consistently?
Credentials. JD with active or prior bar admission, or an international equivalent, is strongly preferred. Prior rubric, training-material, or policy authorship helps.

Logistics

Fully remote and asynchronous. Contributors typically commit 10–20 hours per week with no fixed schedule, though onboarding usually includes a live calibration session and early submissions get reviewer feedback before you scale up volume. Pay is contract, hourly, invoiced through the platform; $90–100/hr reflects observed rates for this listing and is not a guarantee. Work is track-based — you can apply for the US track, the International track, or both.

What they look for

5+ years as a public interest attorney (legal aid, advocacy nonprofit, or government agency)
JD with bar admission or recognized international equivalent
Direct ownership of impact litigation, regulatory advocacy, or policy reform work
Working command of federal civil rights statutes and environmental law (NEPA, CAA, CWA) or international human rights and EU environmental directives
Clear legal writing: briefs, regulatory comments, advocacy memoranda
Rubric, training-material, or policy authorship experience (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 Juris Doctor degree (or equivalent law degree) and active bar admission in at least one US jurisdiction or an equivalent credential in an international jurisdiction?
Law degree and bar admission (or international equivalent) · required
Have you spent at least 5 years working as an attorney at a legal aid organization, public advocacy nonprofit, government agency, or similar public interest setting?
5+ years public interest law experience · required
Have you personally led (not assisted with) at least one impact litigation, regulatory advocacy, or policy reform initiative from initiation through resolution or significant milestone?
Direct litigation or regulatory advocacy ownership · required
Do you have substantive professional experience with US federal civil rights statutes (e.g., Title VII, Fair Housing Act, ADA), environmental statutes (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, NEPA), or both?
US federal civil rights or environmental law expertise · preferred
Do you have substantive professional experience with international human rights law, treaties, or EU environmental directives?
International human rights or EU environmental law expertise · 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 genuinely owned impact litigation or advocacy, not just assisted; whether they understand the real strategic and doctrinal constraints that shape public interest work, not textbook law.
A strong answer: A specific case with named parties, statute, and outcome; clear explanation of why a particular legal theory succeeded or failed in practice; acknowledgment of constraints (funding, court receptiveness, political climate) that forced strategic trade-offs.
Where people lose it: Describing a case they researched or supported rather than led; reciting legal doctrine without connecting it to why their actual client won or lost; vague references to 'impact' without concrete litigation strategy or regulatory mechanics.