Federal Civil Litigation Attorney

$150–250/hr

rate as listed

Workload: ~15h/week
Engagement: Project-based
Location: Worldwide
Field: Legal

Review, rank, and refine AI-generated federal court motions using standards drawn from actual litigation practice. The work also includes designing realistic motion-writing assignments and evaluation criteria for legal AI research.

The work

This remote contractor role centers on evaluating AI-generated writing for federal civil litigation. Day to day, attorneys may compare competing motions, explain which argument is more persuasive, identify defects in reasoning or citations, and edit drafts toward a ready-to-file standard. The work also includes creating realistic federal motion-writing assignments and criteria for assessing legal arguments.

What micro1 screens for

The screening focuses on substantial, hands-on federal civil litigation experience and substantive motion practice, including motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, or similar filings. Candidates should be prepared to discuss at least three successful motions in specific terms and to provide supporting court filings during screening. A JD and active U.S. bar membership in good standing are preferred. Appellate litigation or a judicial clerkship combined with litigation practice is also considered relevant.

Logistics

The engagement is remote and structured as contractor work. The listing does not state whether work is fully asynchronous, how assignments are scheduled, or the typical weekly hours, so candidates should confirm those details during screening. Pay band: $150–250/hr

What they look for

federal civil litigation
motion drafting
legal research
persuasive legal writing
legal analysis
editing and proofreading
evaluating legal arguments
attention to detail
judgment and reasoning
creating evaluation criteria
developing legal assignments

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: This tests whether the candidate personally performs federal litigation work rather than only supervising, reviewing, or describing a firm's broader matters.
A strong answer: A strong answer identifies the federal courts, case types, litigation stages, and specific documents the candidate personally drafted or argued. It distinguishes individual responsibility from team contributions.
Where people lose it: Candidates lose points by discussing general litigation experience without identifying federal matters or their own role in the work.

Summary, eligibility guidance and screening preparation are prepared by Sidequest from the platform's posting. Check the source listing before applying.

LAW on Sidequest

What law AI work pays

Rates by specialty, the platforms hiring, and every open role in this field.