The work

You receive a contract negotiation artifact — typically a transcript of a negotiation plus a reference redline against an MSA, SOW, NDA, DPA, or vendor/SaaS agreement — and you assess the redline the way a supervising partner or GC would. Were the right issues flagged? Were the positions taken defensible for the party being represented? Were the edits surgical, or did the drafter rewrite clauses that didn't need touching? Your output is structured written feedback: what was missed, what was overreached, what was competently handled, and why. The written judgment matters as much as the verdict — this data trains models on legal reasoning, so an unexplained "wrong" is close to useless.

What the screen is looking for

AfterQuery is screening for attorneys who have actually sat across a negotiation, not just read contracts. Expect probes on specific clause families — limitation of liability carve-outs, indemnity scope, data processing terms, auto-renewal and termination mechanics, IP ownership in SOWs — and follow-ups asking why a position is or isn't market for a given party and deal size. They are also testing calibration: whether you can distinguish a redline that is merely stylistically different from yours versus one that is genuinely below competent standard. Attorneys who mark everything they'd have drafted differently as deficient tend not to pass.

Logistics

  • Fully remote, United States only; a US JD from an accredited law school is required and active bar admission is strongly preferred
  • Asynchronous and paid per task — most contributors fit it around full-time practice, and attorneys on a career break are explicitly welcomed
  • No minimum weekly commitment is stated, but volume tends to reward people who can commit predictable blocks rather than sporadic hours
  • Rate observed at $150/hr; pay bands on AfterQuery vary by task type and are not guaranteed