Remote Legal Support (Research & Structuring)

 

CORE PAGE -

Joan D. MULDER, lawyer

Role

Remote Legal Support — Research & Structuring

I support international teams and professionals by structuring, summarising and researching legal and regulatory information, enabling clear and informed decision-making.

I do not provide legal advice and do not act as a legal representative. My work is strictly supportive and informational.

---

What I Do

• Structure and summarise legal documents and contracts
• Identify key issues and factual risk areas
• Conduct legal and regulatory desk research
• Translate complex legal information into clear, decision-ready documents

---

What I Do Not Do (Scope)

• No legal advice
• No binding legal interpretation
• No representation or procedural actions
• No claims of local legal qualification

All deliverables are intended to support internal or external decision-making.

---

Example Engagements

1. Short Assignment — Hourly

Contract or Document Review (Quick Scan)

Scope

• Review and structure provided document(s)
• Summarise key provisions
• Identify factual attention points and risk areas

Deliverable

• 2–3 page structured summary
• Clear bullet-point overview

Time & Terms

• 2–4 hours
• Hourly rate: €45–€65 (excl. VAT)
• Delivery within 1–2 business days

---

2. Defined Project — Fixed Fee

Research Memo / Decision Support Document

Scope

• Define research question
• Conduct desk research (legislation, guidance, public sources)
• Structure findings into a clear memo

Deliverable

• 3–5 page research memo
• Findings overview
• Source references
• Key considerations for next steps

Time & Terms

• 8–15 hours
• Fixed fee: €500–€900 (excl. VAT)
• Turnaround: approximately one week

---

Working Method

• Clear scope and time agreement upfront
• One delivery moment
• Additional questions or extensions are treated as a new assignment

---

Practical

• Fully remote
• English or Dutch output
• Suitable for international contexts
• Rates excl. VAT

🌐

A short assignment can be used to assess fit before engaging in a larger project.

AI is not the problem. Silent opt-ins are.

 Google, Gemini and Consent: Why This Matters

Over the past months, Google has quietly rolled out new AI functionality — including Gemini — across its ecosystem: Gmail, Docs, Drive and more.

What concerns me is not the existence of AI itself.

It’s how it was enabled.

Through product updates, AI features were activated by default, requiring users to manually opt out by changing multiple settings. No clear, explicit consent was requested beforehand.

In other words:

users had to revoke access — rather than grant it.

For many people, this meant discovering Google AI embedded throughout their accounts, analysing content unless they actively disabled it. I did so immediately, because I do not consent to:

automated AI processing of my private communications

broad data collection justified as “product improvement”

cookies and tracking mechanisms beyond what is strictly necessary

This issue is not hypothetical. It is currently at the centre of legal actions in the United States and Europe, where the core question is simple:

Can a company enable AI access to personal data by default — and call silence “consent”?

From a user perspective, this matters deeply.

Consent should be explicit, informed and contemporary — not inherited from decades-old terms of service, nor assumed through inactivity after an update.

I am not anti-technology.

I am pro-choice, pro-privacy and pro-transparency.

If AI is going to touch personal data, the burden should not be on users to hunt through settings to protect themselves. The burden should be on companies to ask — clearly, plainly, and in advance.

Anything else erodes trust.