Competition Rules

Section 1: Rules

(a) Supersession.

These rules supersede any other rules from prior Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court (“Stone”) 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) Exceptions.

1. Any student enrolled in an LPW class shall not be eligible to participate, even if they are classified as a 2L for some purposes.
2. Students participating in the Pro Bono Scholars program may not compete in the Stone competition as per the rules of that program. 
3. Students not present in New York during Spring 2027 are encouraged to talk with their program advisor to ensure in-person participation in the semi-final and final rounds would be consistent with the requirements of their program. Any student who cannot be present in person for oral arguments is ineligible. This rule may be waived in cases of exigent circumstances at the discretion of the Stone Directors.

Section 3: Commitment to the Competition

(a) Registration Requirements. 

Not later than 11:59pm on October 12, 2026, an eligible person who intends to participate in the Stone Moot Court Competition shall register by completing the appropriate Google form. 

(b) Withdrawal. 

Students are assigned to teams so that there are an even number of teams on each side. For this reason, it causes disruption to the competition if teams drop out.  Committed participants may not withdraw from Stone after October 25, 2026 absent extreme circumstances. Any student who withdraws after this date shall not be eligible to compete in future years of the Stone Moot Court except in cases of exigent circumstances at the discretion of the Stone Directors.

(c) Disqualification. 

A participant may be disqualified for submitting a brief that the Directors determine fails to meet acceptable professional standards. 

Section 4: Minor Writing Credit

Any participant may earn Minor Writing credit by (1) submitting the minor writing credit form via Lawnet to Sophia Bernhardt for signature; and (2) sending their completed brief to Sophia Bernhardt via email for approval.

Section 5: Outside Assistance

(a) In General. 

Briefs must be independently written. Each participant's arguments must be their own. Teammates may discuss the substance and style of their argument section with each other, and must work together on the facts section and other front matter.

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

Communication with other participants. Participants on different teams may not give, solicit, or receive written feedback from each other on their briefs before the briefs are submitted. Students are allowed to speak with fellow active Stone competitors regarding overall strategy, substance, and research. 

Communication with non-participants. Except for feedback from the judges, participants may not solicit or receive outside feedback from practicing lawyers, law students, or anyone else until after the competition has concluded and/or the competitor has been eliminated from the competition.

(c) Oral Argument Preparation.

Students may prepare for oral argument and conduct moot arguments with their partner at any time. From November 2, 2026 at 12:01AM until November 16, 2026 at 12:01AM EST, participants may also practice for oral arguments with other participants in this Competition or any other Columbia Law School student, subject to the other rules in this Section. 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.

1. Purpose. The basic principle underlying this policy is that you are permitted to use AI as a tool, subject to your compliance with professional standards analogous to those you will be expected to meet as an attorney. 
2. Permitted platforms. Through the Law School, you have free access to a number of platforms:
   1. Gemini (Columbia Google Workspace) 
   2. Gemini Notebook (formerly NotebookLM) 
   3. Harvey 
   4. Legora 
   5. Westlaw
   6. Lexis
   7. Bloomberg

You may not use personal or consumer AI tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, or Copilot. 

3. Duty of competence (cf. Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1). Professional competence includes understanding the risks and limitations of AI tools and taking appropriate precautions to mitigate them. It also includes developing sufficient command of the relevant law and facts to judge whether AI output is sound. You must be prepared to own your work and take responsibility for any hallucinated citations, unverified assertions, or incomplete analysis.
4. Candor and attribution (cf. Model Rule 3.3 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). In the same way that an attorney's signature on a court filing represents an affirmative warranty to the court, submitting your brief operates as a professional certification to the competition. In that regard:
   1. Submitting an AI-generated argument you have not independently investigated and verified constitutes a false representation of due diligence.
   2. Presenting automated text generation as your own independent analysis violates the basic duty of candor.
   3. Relying on one-sided AI framing to overlook contrary controlling precedent violates your affirmative duty of full disclosure. 
5. Confidentiality and data security. IT IS ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED AND SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION TO UPLOAD/SHARE THE RECORD OR ANY PART OF THE RECORD TO ANY AND ALL AI AND/OR GENERATIVE AI PLATFORMS.
6. Non-delegation (cf. Model Rules 5.3 and 5.5). You may not delegate the exercise of independent professional judgment. You are strictly responsible for every word, factual assertion, legal doctrine, and citation in your brief and oral argument; if an argument, distinction, or citation appears in your work, you must have independently read, understood, and verified it.
7. Documentation and reporting. You are not required to submit prompt logs, chat transcripts, or methodological descriptions as a matter of routine (cf. 22 NYCRR Part 161 (2026), imposing no duty to disclose AI use when filing court papers). Rather, we will rely primarily on the honor system, much as the legal profession relies primarily on attorneys' good faith to enforce professional norms, with verification arising only in the presence of red flags. However, as set forth below, you may be called upon to produce any search records from AI platforms and you should retain any such records until the competition is over and/or you have been eliminated from the competition. 
8. Accountability upon inquiry. By placing your name on your brief, you certify that the submitted work reflects your own analysis and expression. Upon request from the administrators of the competition, you must be prepared to explain whether and how you used AI tools, and you must retain your AI interaction logs and be prepared to submit them.
9. Remedies and Procedure. 
   1. Up to 11:59pm five days prior to an argument round (ie. 11:59pm on Wednesday, Nov. 12 for oral arguments beginning on Nov. 16), a competitor team may request by email that the opposing team provide a Westlaw or Lexis link or PDF to any cited case or document. The requestor must include an explanation as to why they are making the request (i.e. they are unable to find the cited case or document.) A team may also request directions as to where to locate specific quotes within a source. A team receiving such a request must respond within 24 hours unless the time is extended by the Directors or administrators of the Moot Court. For sources other than caselaw, an equivalent non-Westlaw/Lexis/ PDF source may be provided. 
   2. If competitors are not able to provide such sourcing or the opponent team is not satisfied that appropriate sourcing has been provided, the Stone Directors shall be notified. Following that notification, administrators of the Moot Court shall evaluate whether non-existent sources or quotations have been used—or whether existing sources have been materially misrepresented to a degree that violates the model rules of professional conduct. The administrators may also request research trails and/or chat logs, as set out in Section 5(d)(7). Remedies may include, but are not limited to:
      1. Requiring competitors to compose written corrections to be sent to judges, who may use the corrections in their scoring of the brief; 
      2. Disqualification;
      3. Other remedies as determined by the Directors of the Moot Court Program.
      4. In cases of typos, good-faith mistakes, etc. the Moot Court Program reserves the right to not impose any penalty. 
   3. If issues with the brief are not raised five days before the oral argument round begins, competitors may raise the alleged error(s) in their oral argument but will otherwise have waived any request for redress.

(e) Spectators.

Spectators are permitted in any round of the competition. Active competitors shall not spectate. Spectators should not communicate the substance of a round to competitors not in that round.

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. Teammate Selection. 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 via the Google form the participants used to register.
3. Teammate Search Form. Potential participants will be given a link to a Google sheet during the sign-up period to find a partner if they do not already have one. They may list their name, email, and comments and subsequently reach out to others on the list to find a partner. Students who choose not to or do not find a partner through this sheet will be randomly assigned partners. 
4. Client Preferences. The Director or Directors shall assign each team to a client and will accommodate client preferences to the extent possible.
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 (2)) 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. Team members may decide amongst themselves as to who takes each issue. The name of the participant who wrote each issue should be listed in the Stipulations and on the Cover Page.
2. Issue Conflict. Should teams be unable to decide who gets what issue, the Directors will randomly assign an issue to each participant.