Complied AI presents Acts, rules, and regulations and answers questions about them. Everything rests on one thing: that our reading is faithful to the source and that we are not quietly changing what the law says. You would be the person who holds us to that.
Summarising the law is where meaning leaks. A word dropped, a qualifier softened, a general rule stated without its exception, and a summary that looks fine now says something the Act does not. When the product also lets people ask questions and get answers, that risk compounds. Your job is to catch it before a reader does.
You would read what we publish against the source and tell us where the plain meaning and the working meaning part ways. You would review how we present provisions, cross-references, and exceptions, and flag anywhere we have oversimplified into being wrong. You would pressure-test the Q&A on the areas where a confident answer is most dangerous, and help us set rules for when the honest move is to show the text and step back. And you would help us think about the lines a product like this should not cross, so we stay a reading and reference tool and do not drift into giving advice we are not placed to give.
You are trained in law and read statutes closely for a living or did recently, whether in practice, in-house, or research. You do not need to write code. You need to read carefully, argue precisely, and explain a subtle error in a way a non-lawyer can act on.
Freelance, remote, paid, and flexible on hours, as a standing review seat. If a sloppy paraphrase of a section bothers you more than it probably should, you are the person we are looking for.
Apply for Legal
No CV upload. A few questions about you, then a few about the work. Write as much or as little as you like.