Part Time
4.50 per hour
30
May 29, 2026
Legal AI Product Tester / Legal QA Analyst
Remote | Contract | Philippines-Based Preferred
About the Role
Irys is looking for lawyers or legally trained professionals to test our legal AI platform on a daily basis. This role is focused on stress-testing legal AI workflows across litigation, corporate, transactional, research, drafting, and document-review use cases.
You will use your own legal judgment, test sets, sample documents, pleadings, contracts, memos, and research tasks to evaluate whether the system produces accurate, useful, well-structured, and lawyer-reviewable work product.
This is not a passive QA role. We need someone who can think like a lawyer, identify what went wrong, explain why it matters, and structure feedback clearly for our product and AI teams.
Responsibilities
Test Irys legal AI workflows daily across different legal tasks.
Bring and create realistic test sets, including pleadings, contracts, memos, client
Evaluate outputs for legal accuracy, factual grounding, completeness, structure, tone, formatting, and usefulness.
Identify hallucinations, missed facts, weak reasoning, unsupported claims, bad drafting choices, citation problems, and confusing product behavior.
Compare outputs across different modes, prompts, models, and workflows.
Provide structured feedback with clear issue descriptions, severity levels, screenshots, source references, and recommended fixes.
Work closely with product, engineering, and AI teams to reproduce issues and improve the system.
Help define testing rubrics and repeatable evaluation sets for future benchmarking.
What You Should Be Testing For
Did the system understand the uploaded documents?
Did it extract the right facts and miss anything important?
Did it distinguish between fact, law, argument, risk, and client narrative?
Did it cite or reference sources correctly?
Did it draft in the right legal format?
Did it over-admit, overstate, hallucinate, or make unsupported conclusions?
Did it produce something a lawyer could actually review and use?
Did the workflow make sense from a user perspective?
Did any internal/debug language appear in the final output?
Did the product behave reliably across repeated tests?
Qualifications
Law degree or substantial legal training required.
Strong familiarity with U.S. legal documents, pleadings, motions, contracts, legal memos, and common law reasoning strongly preferred.
Experience with U.S., U.K., Australian, Singaporean, or other common law legal work is a plus.
Litigation and/or corporate/transactional experience preferred.
Strong legal writing and analytical skills.
Excellent attention to detail.
Comfortable testing software, documenting bugs, and giving precise feedback.
Ability to work independently and test consistently without needing constant direction.
Interest in legal AI, legal technology, and product development.
Ideal Candidate
The ideal candidate is a legally trained operator who can test like a lawyer and think like a product reviewer. You should be comfortable saying:
This answer is legally wrong.
This draft is useful but not filing-ready.
This missed a key fact.
This cited the wrong source.
This workflow is confusing.
This is a serious issue versus a minor polish issue.
Engagement
Remote contract role.
Part-time or full-time depending on fit and availability.
Daily testing expected.
Paid trial period may be required.
Must be able to provide structured written feedback in clear English.
To Apply
Please send:
Resume or LinkedIn profile.
Short summary of your legal background.
Jurisdictions or legal systems you are familiar with.
Examples of legal documents or workflows you would be comfortable testing.
Availability and expected hourly or monthly rate.
Any prior experience with AI tools, legal tech, QA, or product testing.