Legal Researcher to Test Browser Extension Bluebook Workflow
Budget / Salary$10–30
TypeFreelance project
LocationRemote
Posted2 hours ago
We are developing a browser extension that generates legal citations from free databases like Google Scholar and CourtListener. The tool is already live on the Chrome Web Store: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/legal-citation-generator/bkadkcpkbjlfidjeoaljalfljnijokoh?hl=en
We need a practicing legal professional to test the core concept and workflow. We are not just looking for bug reports. We need honest answers to three critical questions.
First question: does the workflow make sense? The extension works like this. You are researching on Google Scholar. You highlight a passage and copy it. The extension automatically formats the citation and places it in your clipboard. Then you paste it into Word. Is this actually useful in real practice? Or does it interrupt your research flow? We need your genuine opinion.
Second question: is the auto-mode intuitive? We have two modes. The first is fully automatic. It tries to detect the context and choose the correct citation format by itself. The second is manual. You click a popup and select the format you want (full cite, short cite, Id., or pincite). We need to know if the automatic mode feels like a smart assistant or an annoying guesser. Please test both and compare them.
Third question: is a citation without a pincite useful? Currently, the extension can detect pincites (the specific page number) only on Google Scholar and CourtListener. On other databases like Justia or FindLaw, it generates the citation without the pincite. In your daily work, would you ever use a citation without a pinpoint page? Or is this a deal-breaker for you?
Bonus question for your final report: what free or paid legal research resources do you use besides Westlaw, LexisNexis, Google Scholar, CourtListener, Justia, and FindLaw? We want to understand if we are missing any key sources that practitioners actually rely on.
Your tasks will be as follows. Install the extension from the Chrome Web Store. Use it during a typical research session. Find 5 to 10 cases for a hypothetical memo or motion. Test both automatic and manual modes across different databases. Then write a short report answering our three core questions. Be honest and constructive. We value critical thinking over flattery.
What happens after testing? If the extension works well and you find the workflow valuable, we would be grateful if you could leave an honest review in the Chrome Web Store. If the concept or execution fails, we will use your feedback to improve or pivot. We are looking for brutal honesty, not praise.
Ideal candidate: a practicing paralegal, legal assistant, or attorney who regularly conducts legal research and drafts documents. You must have a working knowledge of citation formats. Bluebook is preferred, but other formats are fine. We just need someone who understands legal citation logic. You must be willing to provide detailed, actionable feedback. A one-sentence "it works" is not enough.
Project details: fixed price. Estimated time is 1 to 2 hours of testing plus report writing. Payment is upon delivery of the feedback report.
How to apply: please send a brief proposal confirming your legal background. In one sentence, describe what you find most annoying about current legal citation workflows. We are looking for someone who thinks critically, not just follows instructions.
We look forward to your honest feedback.
We need a practicing legal professional to test the core concept and workflow. We are not just looking for bug reports. We need honest answers to three critical questions.
First question: does the workflow make sense? The extension works like this. You are researching on Google Scholar. You highlight a passage and copy it. The extension automatically formats the citation and places it in your clipboard. Then you paste it into Word. Is this actually useful in real practice? Or does it interrupt your research flow? We need your genuine opinion.
Second question: is the auto-mode intuitive? We have two modes. The first is fully automatic. It tries to detect the context and choose the correct citation format by itself. The second is manual. You click a popup and select the format you want (full cite, short cite, Id., or pincite). We need to know if the automatic mode feels like a smart assistant or an annoying guesser. Please test both and compare them.
Third question: is a citation without a pincite useful? Currently, the extension can detect pincites (the specific page number) only on Google Scholar and CourtListener. On other databases like Justia or FindLaw, it generates the citation without the pincite. In your daily work, would you ever use a citation without a pinpoint page? Or is this a deal-breaker for you?
Bonus question for your final report: what free or paid legal research resources do you use besides Westlaw, LexisNexis, Google Scholar, CourtListener, Justia, and FindLaw? We want to understand if we are missing any key sources that practitioners actually rely on.
Your tasks will be as follows. Install the extension from the Chrome Web Store. Use it during a typical research session. Find 5 to 10 cases for a hypothetical memo or motion. Test both automatic and manual modes across different databases. Then write a short report answering our three core questions. Be honest and constructive. We value critical thinking over flattery.
What happens after testing? If the extension works well and you find the workflow valuable, we would be grateful if you could leave an honest review in the Chrome Web Store. If the concept or execution fails, we will use your feedback to improve or pivot. We are looking for brutal honesty, not praise.
Ideal candidate: a practicing paralegal, legal assistant, or attorney who regularly conducts legal research and drafts documents. You must have a working knowledge of citation formats. Bluebook is preferred, but other formats are fine. We just need someone who understands legal citation logic. You must be willing to provide detailed, actionable feedback. A one-sentence "it works" is not enough.
Project details: fixed price. Estimated time is 1 to 2 hours of testing plus report writing. Payment is upon delivery of the feedback report.
How to apply: please send a brief proposal confirming your legal background. In one sentence, describe what you find most annoying about current legal citation workflows. We are looking for someone who thinks critically, not just follows instructions.
We look forward to your honest feedback.
Apply on Freelancer →
Project sourced from Freelancer.com. Applications happen directly on the original platform — we never collect your data.