moonlight.lawyer

The license clocks out. The lawyer already did.

You are already admitted. Nine to five, your license earns — for the firm that bills it, the company that employs it, the public it serves. After the last email goes out, it earns nothing. Not because the work isn't there, and not because the money doesn't matter. Because two objections stop the employed attorney before the money is ever discussed:

• "My firm's policy doesn't cover outside work." It doesn't. The malpractice coverage that follows you all day stops at the office door, and improvising outside work without your own coverage is exactly the exposure it looks like.
• "My day-job conflicts would be a minefield." They would. An employed attorney's conflicts book is not just their own matters — it is every conflict imputed from the firm under Rule 1.10, and no side platform can see it, hold it, or clear it for them.

Every existing outlet answers the wrong reader. Marketplaces recruit the solo building a book. Of-counsel arrangements recruit the lawyer with a practice to lend. The employed attorney — not underemployed, not leaving — is asked to quit, to hustle, or to improvise the ethics. This brand exists because that reader needs a different first conversation, not a different door.

The two answers, structural — not reassuring

Coverage that names you. The work described here does not run on your firm's policy. The cell's design requires an umbrella E&O program naming the member as the insured, verified in force before anything is signable — until coverage is in force for you, nothing is claimable, and the gate stays shut on purpose.

Conflicts you clear — because only you can. Clearing conflicts is yours to run, not the platform's to guess: your full book, Rules 1.7 and 1.9, plus everything imputed to you from your firm under Rule 1.10. What the platform carries is the machinery — a structured Conflicts Sheet disclosed before any claim, and a conflicts ledger held as hashes platform-side while you hold the names. Moonlighting never means handing your firm's client list to anyone.

Both answers are structural facts of how work is designed to be posted, not assurances — the porch itself tells the reader to forward them to their ethics counsel first, and this deck repeats the instruction.

The terms, described here — offered next door

What follows is how work is priced on gigs.lawyer, described so the reader can weigh it before joining. It is that door's design, restated — not a second offer.

• A flat Legal Fee, fixed before you claim. Set when the work is posted, shown pre-claim. No hourly math after hours, no negotiating a number once the work is done.
• 100% yours, never a share of anything. The Legal Fee is the member's professional fee, whole and undivided; the cell's economics are designed to sit entirely on the demand side of the fee line, at api.lawyer.
• Same day, on the act. A signature, a send-back with defects noted, and a declination with a reasoned memo are all completed professional work — each pays the full flat fee. That matters most to the reader for whom this is the second thing they did today.
• Your no is sovereign. A Declination is paid, final against every process and operator, and never scored against the member — an employed attorney keeps a spotless refusal. The work itself is sized for after hours by design: one prepared item, one review, minutes of judgment at the Review grain rather than an evening consumed.

One cell, one motion — and a porch on the front of it

Every supply surface of the cell is B2H2A — business to licensed human to agent — because a statute names a person. The porch changes where the path starts, not where it goes: the employed attorney arrives on the word they would actually search — moonlight — reads the two answers, and converts at the sibling door's intake. On the cell's fulfilment path, A2H2A, the member recruited through this porch is the required supplier the statute demands.

A brand here is one ICP and one motion, distinct by rule from its siblings: gigs.lawyer is keyed on the occupation and owns the offer for every posture of the license; this porch is keyed on one audience — the reader still on someone's payroll — and owns only that reader's first conversation. api.lawyer sells to machines; nothing is sold here at all.

Why a porch and not a second door

ADR 0005 in the vertical's docket settled it: attorneys and patent agents buy the same sentence, and legal's liquidity matrix — 51 jurisdictions crossed with dozens of practice areas — is the sparsest in the portfolio. A second supply door would fragment thin supply without adding recruiting language. So the cell keeps one door, and multiplicity lives elsewhere: on the demand side as Mints like patent.click, and at family scale across verticals (gigs.claims, gigs.expert).

The employed attorney is the case the rule was built to handle well: the recruiting language genuinely diverges — objections-first, employment-specific, money last — but the supply must not. A porch carries the divergent language; the door, the membership, and the intake stay singular. Zero fragmentation, by construction: there is no application endpoint on this domain.