legalmercorLocation not statedEnglish

Regulatory Law Expert

$90–100/hrrate as listed

Mercor is hiring senior regulatory attorneys to build evaluation scenarios, reference outputs, and grading rubrics for AI systems handling compliance and agency matters. Work is remote and asynchronous, on a US track (APA plus SEC/FDA/FTC regimes) or an International track (EU regulations and directives, UK regulators), with observed pay 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 regulatory scenarios that an AI model is asked to work through, paired with a reference answer you draft yourself and a rubric that explains what separates competent regulatory judgment from plausible-sounding filler. A typical task might be a compliance program redesign after an enforcement referral, a response to an agency information request, a comment letter on a proposed rule, or a risk memo on a novel product feature under an ambiguous regulation. Subject matter spans financial services, healthcare and FDA, antitrust and competition, privacy and cybersecurity, and environmental and energy regulation, and scenarios often reference the tooling real programs run on: regulatory tracking platforms, compliance management systems, and agency filing portals.

The rubric is the deliverable that matters most. Mercor is trying to capture how senior regulatory counsel actually reason — where the deference question lives, when a voluntary disclosure is the wrong call, why a technically correct citation still produces bad advice — rather than whether a model can recite the elements of a statute. Reviewers push back on rubrics whose criteria could be satisfied by generic bar-exam recall.

What the platform screens for

Verifiable ownership. Five-plus years as regulatory counsel or compliance counsel at a major firm, a regulated company, or an agency — and specific matters you personally drove, not matters you staffed.
Depth under follow-up. The AI interview asks a second and third question about the same regime; general familiarity with, say, the APA rulemaking sequence tends to surface quickly.
Credentials. JD with active bar admission or an international equivalent is strongly preferred; prior rubric, training-material, or compliance-documentation authorship helps.
Track fit. Say plainly whether you are US, International, or both. Overclaiming a second track is a common disqualifier.

Logistics

Fully remote, asynchronous, contractor engagement with no fixed hours. Most contributors take on a defined batch of worlds with a delivery window rather than a weekly quota; sustained contributors often run 10–20 hours a week. Pay in the $90–100/hr band reflects rates observed on recent Mercor regulatory listings and is not guaranteed — actual offers vary by track, specialty scarcity, and screening outcome. Expect a revision cycle on your first batch as you calibrate to house rubric conventions.

What they look for

JD with active bar admission or recognized international equivalent
5+ years as a regulatory attorney or compliance counsel (law firm, regulated company, or agency)
Direct ownership of compliance programs, agency interactions, or enforcement matters
Depth in at least one regime: APA and SEC/FDA/FTC rules, or EU regulations/directives and UK regulators
Drafting of compliance memoranda, regulatory filings, and enforcement response documents
Rubric, training-material, or compliance-documentation authorship

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 and are you currently admitted to practice law in at least one US state or hold the equivalent law degree and professional qualification in another jurisdiction (e.g., LLB and solicitor/barrister admission in UK, Irish equivalent, or EU member state bar)?
JD and bar admission (US or international equivalent) · required
Do you have at least 5 years of professional experience working as a regulatory attorney or compliance counsel, including at least one of the following: at a major law firm, in-house at a regulated financial services or healthcare company, at a government regulatory agency, or in a compliance or regulatory affairs role?
5+ years regulatory law experience · required
Have you had direct ownership or substantial leadership of at least one regulatory compliance program, agency investigation response, or enforcement matter—that is, were you the primary lawyer or compliance professional responsible for the outcome?
Direct regulatory ownership experience · required
Have you used regulatory tracking platforms, compliance management systems, or agency filing or portal systems as part of your day-to-day regulatory work?
Hands-on agency or compliance tooling experience · preferred
Do you have substantive expertise in at least one of the following: US regulatory domains (Financial Services, FDA/Healthcare, Antitrust, Data Privacy, or Environmental), US Administrative Procedure Act and agency practice, EU regulatory frameworks and directives, or UK regulatory bodies and frameworks?
US or international regulatory expertise · required

0 of 5 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 the candidate has built and sustained actual compliance infrastructure (not just advised on it), and can articulate the methodical judgment that separates program design from generic compliance checklists.
A strong answer: The answer must name a concrete regulated sector, describe the program's scope (e.g., pre-approval filings, monitoring thresholds, escalation triggers), and explain a structural choice made to balance operational efficiency against enforcement exposure—showing the candidate weighed competing regulatory constraints.
Where people lose it: Answering at the level of 'I advised on compliance' or listing generic practices (document retention, training, audits) without tying them to a specific agency posture, remediation timeline, or risk tier the program was designed to protect against.