Competition Rules

2023–2024 Competition Rules & Style Guide

Section 1: Citation of the Rules


(a) Citation.

These rules may be cited in the following form and style: Stone Moot Ct. R. X.

(b) Supersession.

These rules supersede any other rules from prior Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court competitions.
 

Section 2: Eligibility


(a) In General. 

Except as provided in subsection (b), any second-year, third-year, or L.L.M. student enrolled at Columbia Law School shall be eligible to participate in the Stone Moot Court Competition.


(b) Exception.

A person who has been awarded either the Lawrence S. Greenbaum Prize or the prize for Best Brief for their Final Round performance shall not be eligible to participate.

Section 3: Commitment to the Competition


(a) Registration Requirements. 

Not later than 11:59 p.m. on October 9, 2023, an eligible person who intends to participate in the Stone Moot Court Competition shall register by completing the appropriate Google form.
 

(b) Withdrawal. 

A participant may be disqualified for submitting a brief or making an oral presentation that the Directors determine, in consultation with the presiding round judges, fails to meet acceptable professional standards.
 

Section 4: Minor Writing Credit


Any participant may earn Minor Writing credit by submitting the minor writing credit form to Sophia Bernhardt for signature and their completed brief to Sophia Bernhardt for approval.
 

Section 5: Outside Assistance

(a) In General. 

Briefs must be independently written and researched. Each participant's arguments must be their own.
 

(b) Strategic, Substantive, Research, or Stylistic Assistance.

With the exceptions of communication with one's partner and feedback from judges after oral arguments, participants may not give, solicit, or receive any strategic, substantive, research, or stylistic assistance specific to their brief.


(c) Oral Argument Preparation.

Subject to all requirements of these Competition Rules, including this Section, participants may practice for oral arguments with their partner, other participants in this Competition, or any other Columbia Law School student. Participants may only conduct and/or participate in practice or moot oral arguments starting on October 30, 2023 at 12:01AM EST. At no point will any student serving as a practice judge for one team share information about that team's brief or oral argument preparation with any other members of the law school community.

(d) Artificial Intelligence Programs.

Participants may not use any artificial intelligence program, including and similar to ChatGPT, in connection with their participation in this Competition, including for writing a brief or any portion of a brief submitted for any round of the Competition.


(e) Disqualification.

Failure to abide by this Section, as judged by the Director or Directors, will result in disqualification.

 

Section 6: Initial Team, Client, and Issue Assignments


(a) In General.

The Directors shall randomly assign each participant to a team, client, and issue.


(b) Team and Client Assignments.


1. In General. Each team shall consist of two participants, and the members of each team shall represent the same client.

2. Team Assignments. Except as provided in subparagraph (3), the Directors shall randomly assign each participant to a team and client.

3. Teammate Selection Exception. on the mutual request of any two participants, the Director  or Directors shall assign those two participants to the same team. Such requests must be sent to the Directors by via the Google form the participants used to register.

4. Client Preferences. The Director or Directors shall not accommodate any client preferences.

5. Odd Numbers. If an odd number of people participate in the Stone Moot Court Competition, the Directors shall randomly (except as provided in subparagraph (3)) select one participant to compete without a teammate. This participant shall in no way be penalized for participating without a teammate.

(c) Issue Assignments.


1. In General. The Director or Directors shall randomly assign an issue to each participant. The Director or Directors may, at their discretion, enable competitors to indicate issue preference in the registration Google Form. The Directors may, at their discretion, take issue preferences into account when assigning each participant their issue.

2. Issue Exchanges. Issue exchanges between team partners are solely at the discretion of the Directors or Directors. Requests to exchange issues between team partners will not be considered after October 10, 2023.

(d) Notification. The Directors shall notify each participant of their initial team, client and issue assignments within a few days of the registration deadline.

Section 7: Qualifying Round

(a) Timing.

The Qualifying Round shall be held on November 13, 14, 15, and 16, 2023. 

(b) Record.

The record shall be released to participants between October 2 and October 7, 2023.

(c) Briefs.

1. In General. Each team shall submit a brief on or before October 29, 2023, by 11:59PM EST.


2. Contents.  The order and content of the briefs should comply with the requirements set forth in Section 10 infra (Style & Formatting).
 

3. Length. The argument section for Issue One may be no longer than fifteen pages double-spaced. The argument section for Issue Two may be no longer than fifteen pages double-spaced. 


4. Collaboration. Teammates shall collaborate to produce all sections described above except for those described in Section 10(a)infra.


5. Submission. Each team shall timely submit one electronic copy in PDF format in the manner specified by the Directors. Late submissions will be penalized at a rate of 0.25 points per hour, beginning immediately after the deadline has passed.

 

(d) Oral Arguments.


1. In General. Oral arguments for the Qualifying Round shall be held during the fall semester. Oral arguments are scheduled for the week of November 13, 14, 15, and 16, 2023. Students with conflicts are expected to accommodate the schedule and should contact the Directors immediately upon learning of a conflict.

2. Rounds. Each team shall participate in two oral arguments during the Qualifying Round at an hour and location to be determined by the Directors.

3. Length and Structure.


A. In General. Each participant shall be allotted fifteen minutes in which to present an oral argument.


B. Rebuttal. Each participant arguing for the side that brought the appeal may reserve up to three minutes for rebuttal by requesting it at the beginning of their argument.

 

(e) Scoring.


1. In General. Each participant's brief and oral argument will be judged individually. Although judges should attempt to draw distinctions between the performances of the participants, they may assign the same score to multiple participants.

2. Facts Scoring. In addition to scoring the individual participant’s brief and oral argument scores, teams will be given a score from 110 based on their combined statement of facts.

3. Cumulative Scores. A participant's cumulative score shall be the sum of:
 

A. the average of each 110 score awarded to the participant for their statement of facts by each judge during the Qualifying Rounds.

B. the average of each 150 score awarded to the participant for all other sections of their brief by each judge during the Qualifying Rounds; and

C. the average of each 150 score awarded to the participant for their oral argument by each judge during the Qualifying Rounds.

4. Submission. Each team shall timely submit one electronic copy in PDF format by email to the Director or Directors. Late submissions will be penalized at a rate of 0.25 points per hour (amounting to 6 points per day), beginning immediately after the deadline has passed.

The deadline for brief submission is 11:59 PM EST on October 29, 2023.

(f) Advancement.


1. In General.

A. Issues One. Of the participants assigned to argue Issues One, the eight participants who have the highest cumulative scores shall advance to the Elimination Round.

B. Issue Two. Of the participants assigned to argue Issue Two, the eight participants who have the highest cumulative scores shall advance to the Elimination Round.

2. Ties.

A. Director Selection. In the event of a tie, the Director or Directors shall use a random generator to decide who advances.

Section 8: Semifinal Round

(a) Timing.

The Elimination Round shall be held during the spring semester of 2024, with dates to be confirmed by the Directors. 

(b) Reassignment of Teams.

1. Teams.

 

A. In General. Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C), the Director or Directors shall randomly assign each participant who advances to a team.

 

B. Teammate Selection Exception. On the mutual request of the participants, the Director or Directors shall assign to the same team any two participants who have advanced to the Elimination Round and who are assigned to different issues.

 

C. Qualifying Round Teammate Exception. If both members of a team from the Qualifying Round advance to the Elimination Rounds, they will automatically be assigned to each other. However, they may alternatively request to be randomly assigned as provided in subparagraph (A).

 

2. Issues. Each participant who advances to the Semifinal Round shall brief and argue the same issue to which they were assigned in the Qualifying Round.

 

3. Clients. For a given issue, if the number of advancing participants who represented Appellant in the Qualifying Round does not equal the number of advancing participants who represented Appellee in the Qualifying Round, the participants with the lowest scores for each issue will be asked to switch clients.

 

4. Withdrawal. An advancing participant who does not wish to continue in the competition may decline to do so if the Director or Directors are notified of the declination within 48 hours of the announcement of advancing participants but will receive no recognition for advancing to the Elimination Round. The declining participant will be replaced by the participant with the next highest score for that issue.

(c) Briefs.

1. In General. Each team shall submit a new or updated brief by late January or early February 2024, with the date to be determined by the Director or Directors.


2. Contents. The order and content of the briefs should comply with the requirements set forth in Section 10 infra.

3. Length. The argument section for Issue One may be no longer than fifteen pages double-spaced. The argument section for Issue Two may be no longer than fifteen pages double-spaced. 


4. Collaboration. Teammates shall collaborate to produce all sections with the sole exception of the Argument section, see Section 10(a) infra.

 

5. Submission. Each team shall timely submit one electronic copy in PDF format by email to the Director or Directors. Late submissions will be penalized at a rate of 0.25 points per hour (amounting to 6 points per day), beginning immediately after the deadline has passed. The deadline for submission will be set by the Director or Directors.

(d) Oral Arguments.

1. In General. Oral arguments for the Elimination Rounds shall be held on approximately four nights during the spring semester.  Students with conflicts are expected to accommodate the schedule and should contact the Director or Directors immediately.

2. Round Robin Rounds. Advancing teams will argue four times across four nights in spring 2024. Each argument will take place against a different team, such that each Appellant argues against each Appellee and each Appellee argues against each Appellant.  

3. Length and Structure.

  1. In General. Each participant shall be allotted fifteen minutes in which to present an oral argument.

 

  1. Rebuttal. Each participant arguing for the side that brought the appeal may reserve up to three minutes for rebuttal by requesting it at the beginning of their argument.

(e) Scoring.

1. In General. Each participant's brief and oral argument will be judged individually but participants shall advance together on the basis of their combined performance and scores. Although judges should attempt to draw distinctions between the performances of the participants, they may assign the same score to multiple participants.

 

2. Facts Scoring. In addition to scoring the individual participant’s brief and oral argument scores, teams will be given a score from 1–10 based on their combined statement of facts by each judge.

 

3. Scores. A participant's score for any particular round shall be assessed by a review of how many “ballots” the participant’s team was awarded. In any given round there will be three ballots available. In a round with three judges, each judge will award a ballot on the basis of their scores, such that the team with the higher overall scores earn one ballot. In rounds with either fewer or greater than three judges, the number of ballots awarded will be decided fractionally, such that if two out of four judges score Team A higher than Team B, Team A will receive 1.5 ballots. Scoring internal to each judge’s ballot process will be structured such that each participant receives:

  1. a 1–10 score for their statement of facts.
  2. a 1–50 score awarded to the participant for all other sections of their brief; and
  3. a 1–50 score awarded to the participant for their oral argument.

(f) Advancement.

1. In General.

 

  1. Teams will advance together, rather than as individual participants.

 

  1. Each judge’s scores will be examined individually to decide which team scored higher, or “won their ballot.”

 

  1. Following all four “Round Robin” Semifinal rounds, the Appellant team with the highest overall number of ballots shall advance and the Appellee team with the highest overall number of ballots shall advance.

 

2. Ties.

 

  1. In General. In the event of a tie between two teams such that they garner the same overall raw score from a judge’s ballots, each team shall receive half a ballot or the fractional equivalent thereof pursuant to Section 8(e)(3).

 

  1. Ballot Tie. In the event that two teams with the same client receive the same number of ballots across the Semifinal Round, the advancing team will be decided by averaging the raw scores from each ballot and selecting the team with the higher average raw score.

Section 9: Final Round

(a) Timing.

The Final Round will be held on a date TBD, subject to change at the discretion of the Director or Directors.

(b) Reassignment of Teams.

1. Clients. Teams will retain their clients from the Semifinal Round.  

2. Withdrawal. An advancing participant who does not wish to continue in the competition may decline to do so if the Director or Directors is/are notified of the declination within 48 hours of the announcement of advancing participants but will receive no recognition for advancing to the Final Round. The declining participant will be replaced by the team that received the second most ballots in the Semifinal Round.

(c) Briefs.

1. In General. Each team shall submit a brief in spring 2024, date to be determined.

2. Contents. The order and content of the Final Round briefs should comply with the requirements set forth in Section 10.

3. Length. The argument section for Issue One may be no longer than twenty pages double-spaced. The argument section for Issue Two may be no longer than twenty pages double-spaced.

4. Collaboration. Teammates shall collaborate to produce all sections with the sole exception of the Argument section, see Section 10(a) infra.

5. Submission. Each team shall submit one electronic copy in PDF format to the Director or Directors.

(d) Oral Arguments.

1. Length and Structure.

A. In General. Each participant shall be allotted fifteen minutes in which to present an oral argument.

B. Rebuttal. Each participant arguing for the side that brought the appeal may reserve up to three of their fifteen minutes for rebuttal by requesting it at the beginning of their argument.

(e) Recognition.


1. In General. Only the panel of judges for the Final Round shall determine the participant with the best oral argument in the Final Round.


2. Lawrence S. Greenbaum Prize. The Lawrence S. Greenbaum Prize shall be awarded to the participant with the best oral argument in the Final Round.


3. Best Brief. The Moot Court Executive Board, in consultation with the Final Round judges, shall determine the participant with the best brief in the Final Round.

Section 10: Contents of the Brief & Formatting

(a). Contents.

All briefs shall contain the following sections:

  1. Title Page (including participant and client names and an indication of which student wrote which issue)
  2. Table of Contents
  3. Table of Authorities
  4. Questions Presented
  5. Stipulations
  6. Key Constitutional and/or Statutory Provisions
  7. Statement of the Case
  8. Statement of Facts
  9. Summary of the Argument
  10. Argument
  11. Conclusion

(b) Record Citations. 

You may cite to the Record using any of the following forms: “R. at X” or "R-X" (where "X" refers to the page number in the Record), so long as it is consistent throughout all sections of the brief.

(c) Style. 

  1. Formatting. All brief submissions shall be written in Times New Roman, size 12, font, and be double spaced.
  2. File naming. All brief submissions shall be submitted in the following format: "Team [No.] Brief_[Side Arguing]_[Last Name 1 & Last Name 2]" (E.g., "Team 65 Brief_Appellant_Gordon & Konstantinovsky").