Available Job Positions
We currently do not have anymore openings.
Expired Job Positions
Available as of October 16, 2024
Expired as of October 22, 2024
This job is no longer available as of October 22, 2024
Legal Writer Position
Type: Fully Remote, Independent Contractor
Working Hours: 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week, Monday – Friday
Orientation: One-week orientation from 10:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. WAT (with a 30-minute break)
Hiring Location: Nigeria
Job Description
We are seeking a highly skilled Legal Writer to join our team as an independent contractor. In this role, you will be responsible for crafting legal exam questions designed to challenge and engage law students. The ideal candidate will have a solid understanding of how legal frameworks apply to real-world scenarios and demonstrate the ability to simplify complex legal concepts into exam questions.
Key Responsibilities:
- Write clear, concise, and challenging legal exam questions for law students.
- Ensure accuracy and applicability of legal principles in various factual scenarios.
- Utilize WordPress for content management.
- Implement AI tools such as ChatGPT to enhance productivity and quality.
Qualifications:
- Strong grasp of legal frameworks and their application to factual scenarios.
- Proficiency in WordPress for content management.
- Familiarity with AI applications like ChatGPT.
- Ability to work independently and meet deadlines.
- Must have a laptop or desktop.
What We Offer:
- Fully remote working environment.
- Flexible work hours: Work 8 hours a day at any time between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. WAT, Monday to Friday.
- One-week orientation to align with the company’s processes and expectations.
Application Process:
- Submit your resume.
- Instead of a cover letter, submit your sample battery question and answer (see instructions below).
Instructions:
As part of your application, we ask that you write a legal exam question on the topic of battery using the definition and case law provided below, and using the IRACC structure. You’ll use the legal framework from McElhaney v. Thomas to create a factual scenario and apply the law to your own hypothetical case. This will allow us to assess your ability to craft legal exam questions and analyze factual scenarios.
What is IRACC?
IRACC is a legal analysis structure that helps organize and present a thorough legal argument. Here’s what it stands for:
- Issue: Identify the legal issue raised by the facts.
- Rule: State the relevant legal rule or principle.
- Application: Apply the legal rule to the facts of the case.
- Counterarguments: Address any potential arguments or defenses the opposing party might raise.
- Conclusion: Provide a conclusion based on the analysis.
Definition of Battery
Elements of Battery (McElhaney v. Thomas):
Battery is the unprivileged touching or striking of one person by another, done with the intent of bringing about either a contact or an apprehension of contact that is harmful or offensive (McElhaney v. Thomas, 307 Kan. 45 (Kan. 2017)). Battery requires intentional, harmful, or offensive contact with another person. The case of McElhaney v. Thomas helps define these elements by illustrating how intent and the nature of contact are evaluated in court.
Your Task
Your task is to write a different version of a battery exam question using the same legal principles from McElhaney v. Thomas. You must write your question and response about a battery that occurs in either a subway station or a corporate office party. We’ve provided a sample question and answer below to guide you.
Submission Guidelines:
Please submit your version of the question and answer (using IRACC) based on one of the scenarios provided. Ensure that your response follows the structure and legal principles outlined above.
Sample Question and Answer
Question:
On a busy afternoon at a local coffee shop, Sarah and James get into a heated argument over a seat. Frustrated, Sarah grabs a hot cup of coffee and splashes it towards James, aiming to scare him. The coffee spills onto James’ arm, causing a minor burn. James sues Sarah for battery. Analyze whether Sarah is liable for battery.
Answer
Issue: The primary issue is whether Sarah committed battery against James when she splashed coffee at him during their argument. Specifically, the question is whether Sarah’s actions constitute intentional, harmful, or offensive contact under the legal principles outlined in McElhaney v. Thomas.
Rule: Under McElhaney v. Thomas, battery is defined as the unprivileged touching or striking of one person by another, done with the intent of bringing about either a contact or an apprehension of contact that is harmful or offensive. Intent can be established if the defendant acts with the purpose of causing contact or knows that such contact is substantially certain to result. Harmful contact is defined as physical harm or pain, while offensive contact is defined as contact that would offend a reasonable person’s sense of personal dignity.
Application: Sarah’s actions appear to meet the elements of battery. First, Sarah’s act of splashing coffee was intentional; she purposefully threw the coffee toward James in response to their argument. Even though Sarah may have intended to scare rather than harm, intent in battery does not require a desire to cause injury, only an intent to make contact or cause apprehension of contact. In this case, Sarah’s intent to splash coffee meets the intent requirement because she acted with the knowledge that her actions would likely result in contact.
Second, the contact was both harmful and offensive. The coffee made direct contact with James’s arm, causing a minor burn, which satisfies the harmful contact element. Moreover, splashing hot coffee at someone is inherently offensive, as it violates a person’s sense of personal security and dignity. The fact that the contact resulted in physical harm further solidifies the argument that the contact was not only offensive but harmful as well.
Counterarguments: Sarah might argue that she did not intend to cause harmful contact, as her primary goal was to scare James rather than to harm him physically. However, under McElhaney v. Thomas, the focus is on the intent to make contact, not necessarily the intent to harm. Even if Sarah’s primary intent was to scare, she knew or should have known that splashing coffee could cause physical contact and potential harm. Additionally, Sarah might claim that the contact was minor or accidental. However, the degree of harm is irrelevant in establishing battery; even slight and offensive contact can fulfill the elements of the tort.
Conclusion: Sarah is likely liable for battery against James. Her intentional act of splashing coffee, resulting in harmful and offensive contact, meets the legal requirements for battery as established in McElhaney v. Thomas. The intentionality of her action and the nature of the contact make it unprivileged and offensive, thus satisfying the elements of battery. Therefore, Sarah’s actions likely constitute battery, making her liable for the harm caused to James.
If you’re passionate about the law and have a knack for writing, apply today to join our team!