What the work actually involves
Each task starts with you inventing a legal question hard enough that a frontier model gets it wrong or reasons its way to a shaky answer. That usually means questions requiring synthesis across authorities — a circuit split applied to novel facts, a statutory text read against its legislative history, a doctrine whose application shifts by jurisdiction. Simple recall ("what is the elements test for X") is rejected; the item has to demand interpretation. You then research the answer yourself in primary materials, write it up with pin citations, and document the reasoning chain so a reviewer can retrace it. Finally you run the question past model output, grade the response, and — if the model handled it cleanly — sharpen or replace the item.
What the platform screens for
micro1's screening is AI-led and conversational, and it pushes on depth. Expect to be asked to name a specific area of law you can write difficult questions in, then to produce an example on the spot and defend why it is hard. Screens also probe source discipline: which reporters, codes, and databases you actually use, and how you handle a question where the authorities conflict. Prior AI experience is explicitly not required, but evaluation judgment is — the ability to say why a plausible-sounding model answer is legally wrong, not merely differently worded.
Logistics and pay
- Fully remote, asynchronous, contractor engagement. No fixed hours; you take tasks from a queue.
- Compensation is per accepted task, not hourly. Observed effective rates on comparable micro1 legal projects fall in the $40–90/hr range depending on how fast you research and how often work passes review on first submission — this is not a guaranteed rate.
- A weekly minimum submission volume applies. Roles are typically filled within 48 hours and first tasks are expected within 24–48 hours of onboarding.
- Written English fluency is required; native proficiency is not.