FAQs & Guidance
-
Clarification requests are intended to identify and resolve genuine ambiguities or errors in the problem statement. They are not an opportunity to obtain hints, guidance on how to solve the problem, or advice on how the problem question should be interpreted or the relevant law.
Neither the judges nor the problem authors see the clarification requests submitted by teams. Clarification requests are seen only by the Convenor, who consults with the problem author where necessary. Submitting (or not submitting) clarification requests has no effect on your score.
Competitors are reminded to confine their factual analysis and discussion of issues in their submissions to matters relevant to the reserved questions.
-
Under the Competition Rules, all teams must prepare written submissions for both the Appellant and the Respondent.
During the preliminary rounds, each team will appear as counsel for the Appellant twice and for the Respondent twice.
Sides will be allocated at random for the Finals Rounds.
-
How you allocate issues between Senior and Junior counsel is a decision for you and your team.
The speaking order will be as follows (unless your judge(s) say otherwise):
Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff
Junior Counsel for the Plaintiff
Senior Counsel for the Respondent
Junior Counsel for the Respondent
-
Artificial intelligence is transforming the legal profession. While AI offers many potential benefits for lawyers and the broader legal industry, it also presents significant risks and limitations.
Members of the Gibbs Organising Team have observed the increasing use of AI in both oral and written submissions across many mooting competitions. While AI can be a valuable tool when used appropriately, its misuse or overreliance on its outputs can create significant issues, including fabricated citations, incorrect statements or interpretations of the law, and other inaccuracies.
Although it can be difficult to conclusively establish whether AI has been used, its inappropriate use is often apparent through the quality, accuracy, or consistency of submissions. The Organising Team has also observed situations where competitors who rely too heavily on AI are less prepared to respond effectively to questions during oral submissions, particularly where they have not developed a thorough understanding of the arguments they are advancing.
These issues have, in most cases, negatively affected teams’ scores. It is disappointing for competitors to invest significant time and effort preparing for a moot, only to have their performance undermined by inaccurate research, unsupported arguments, or a lack of familiarity with their own submissions.
The Gibbs Moot does not impose an outright ban on the use of AI. However, teams are strongly encouraged to use AI sparingly and responsibly, both to comply with the Gibbs AI Policy and to maximise their own prospects of success. AI should be used as a supporting tool, not as a substitute for independent legal research, analysis, preparation, and advocacy.
-
Consistent with the Terms and Conditions of Sale and to the maximum extent permitted by the Australian Consumer Law, all ticket purchases are final and non-refundable. Refunds, exchanges, or credits will not be provided for reasons including, without limitation, a change of mind, inability to attend, illness or personal circumstances, travel or accommodation issues, or dissatisfaction with the Conference. You acknowledge that your rights to a refund are limited to those required under applicable law.