01
Paid per review
A published rate per completed review — the same whether you accept, correct, reject or escalate. Reviews are timed and scoped, so you know what you are taking before you take it. Pay is never contingent on approving anything.
Review, contribute, earn.
Most legal AI treats attorneys as the thing being disrupted. We treat them as the thing being compounded. The judgment you apply to a review is measured, it is paid — and where it becomes knowledge the system reuses, you share in what it earns for as long as it keeps working.
You keep your practice. This is a queue, not a job.
You accept work from queues scoped by jurisdiction and practice area, on standards you can read before you accept anything. It is not a referral scheme, and it is not piecework dressed up as one.
02
Revenue share on knowledge
Contribute a playbook, a position, a clause pattern. When endpoints use it, you share the revenue it generates — for as long as it keeps working, not as a one-time payment for a document. Contribution stays attributed.
03
Your judgment trains the model
Corrections, rankings, redlines and escalation calls are the RLLF signal behind OpenLegalLM. The standards you mark to are written and versioned, and the application side cannot override a flag you raise.
Matter work is separate and real: when a customer’s matter goes Yellow or Red, a conflict-checked attorney is engaged by the customer, on a stated scope, with the file already built — the record, the documents, the history and the issue list, assembled before the first call. The two modes of review
What we ask of a reviewer.
- Licensure in good standing — in the jurisdictions whose queues you accept, re-verified on a schedule.
- Conflicts, disclosed and re-checked — before a matter is offered, and again when the facts change.
- A turnaround you agreed to — each queue states its window. You accept the queue, not an unbounded obligation.
- Structured feedback, not free text — accept, rank, redline, reject, or escalate, and in every case name the governing reason: the statute, the standard, or the practice that decides it.
- Confidentiality on anonymized material — contributor terms bind everything you see in continuous review, including a bar on any attempt at re-identification.
What attorneys ask us.
What happens to work I contribute?
It arrives with provenance, consent and a permitted use, and it stays attributed. You’re paid per review, and you share in the revenue the knowledge you contributed generates, for as long as it keeps working. Your reviews train the model; your pay is never contingent on approving anything.
Could the review rate pressure me toward approving?
No — that is the point of the pay design. The rate per completed review is identical for an accept, a correction, a rejection and an escalation, and there is no throughput bonus tied to outcomes. Revenue share lives in a separate ledger attached to contributed knowledge, not to reviews. A reviewer who flags heavily earns exactly what one who flags rarely earns for the same volume.
What do I see in continuous review?
Clean-Room-anonymized artifacts: the document structure, jurisdiction, legal posture and clause language intact, with the company, the people, the counterparties and identifying amounts removed. You never learn whose work it is, and the terms bar you from trying to find out. A live customer matter is different — you see it only when that customer has engaged you on it.
Does this create an attorney-client relationship?
Continuous review does not — you are reviewing anonymized artifacts under contributor terms, not advising a client. A matter engagement does, and it runs between you and the customer directly, conflict-checked, on a stated scope. Which obligations attach in your jurisdiction is exactly the kind of question to raise with us before you accept a queue — the standards and terms spell out the structure, and we would rather you probe it now than discover it later.
Tell us your jurisdictions. We’ll send the standards.
The review standards for the queues that fit your practice, and the reviewer terms — in writing, before you commit to anything. We reply within two business days.