Academic Rules and Procedures

The academic requirements outlined below are excerpted from Columbia Law School's Academic Rules. The rules detail all academic requirements for each type of degree and are specific to Columbia Law School except where noted. For Columbia University policies and procedures, please visit Columbia University Regulations and Policies.

Key Academic Policies

Student Written Work

Student writing may be submitted in partial fulfillment for the requirements of scheduled courses and seminars, and also under the category of Supervised Research. In addition, all J.D. students are required to complete both a Major Writing Project and a Minor Writing Project before graduating. All LL.M. students are required to complete an LL.M. Writing Project. The distinctions among these categories are as follows:

J.D. Major Writing Credit. The key feature of the Major Writing Credit is not additional length, but significant revision. Specifically, work submitted for Major Writing Credit must be a substantial and rigorous piece of legal writing on a topic approved in advance by a faculty member who has agreed to act as Faculty Supervisor. All full-time, visiting, and adjunct faculty can serve as a Faculty Supervisor. Here, “substantial and rigorous” refers to work comparable to that required by a paper that serves as the primary basis of evaluation for a 2-credit seminar (e.g., approximately 6500 - 8000 words). A shorter paper reporting extensive empirical, archival or like work, however, could also qualify as substantial and rigorous. The student must submit a first draft to the faculty supervisor, receive comments on the draft, and then submit a revised version of the paper that is responsive to those comments.
J.D. Minor Writing Credit. Work submitted for Minor Writing Credit may be an ordinary course paper, brief, or other written work, and does not require a revision in response to the faculty supervisor’s comments. The expected length and scope of the paper, however, should be otherwise comparable to that required by a paper that serves as the primary basis of evaluation for a two-credit seminar.
LL.M. Writing Project. The LL.M. writing requirement may differ from the Major and Minor Writing Credits required of J.D. students. LL.M. candidates must complete and submit a paper worth at least one point of Law School academic credit. The written work may be completed in a variety of ways, including in seminar courses or as supervised research registered as “Research for the LL.M. Degree.” Any course that automatically meets the J.D. Minor Writing Requirement should automatically meet the LL.M. Writing Project requirement. More information on the LL.M.
Supervised Research. Students wishing to earn academic point credit outside the confines of a regularly scheduled course offering should register for Supervised Research. Credit may be earned by writing a research paper or its substantial equivalent under the supervision of any faculty member, including visiting and adjunct faculty. The number of credits earned for supervised research should depend on the amount of work that the project entails. (For example, a paper that will require work comparable to that required by a two-credit seminar should be awarded two points of credit.

Students registered for Supervised Research are expected to communicate regularly with the supervising instructor over the course of the project. Instructors should consult in advance with students and with the Dean of Registration Services on the appropriate plan of supervision in any particular case.

In the past, some students have asked faculty, often in connection with outside externships or internships, to supervise them in earning credit without writing a paper. This is no longer permissible. Please tell students seeking academic credit of this sort that they must register for Supervised Research and write a paper sufficient to earn credit under that category.

It is entirely within the instructor’s discretion whether to accept applications for Supervised Research, Major Writing Credit, or LL.M. Writing Credit that go beyond the ordinary requirements for the instructor's course. If you feel you do not have time to supervise a student’s project, or otherwise lack interest in the proposal, please feel free to decline the student’s request. You may also wish to require the student to write up a formal proposal before deciding whether to serve as supervisor.

In October 2003, the Faculty adopted the following principles of academic honesty by which students are expected to abide. These principles are the cornerstone of educational integrity at Columbia Law School. They also reflect the legal profession’s special obligations of self-regulation. Students are expected to familiarize themselves with these principles during initial orientation and before taking an examination or submitting any work for credit toward a degree. Academic dishonesty — attempted or actual — will not be tolerated.

Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to:

Plagiarism: Failure to cite or otherwise acknowledge in any paper, exercise, or project submitted for credit ideas or phrases gained from another source such as published text, another person’s work, or materials on the Internet unless the source is obvious from the context given.
Self-Plagiarism: The submission of one piece of work in more than one offering or in any two exercises for credit without the explicit permission of the instructors involved.
Preparation by another: The submission of work as one’s own that has been prepared by or purchased from another.
Cheating: To give, receive, take assistance, or make unauthorized use of information from written material, another person, his or her paper, or from any other source (except as explicitly allowed by the instructor) before or during an examination or other written exercise.
Violation of instructions: Failure to abide by the explicit directions or instructions of an instructor with regard to a performance for credit.
Falsification of work product: Falsification or misrepresentation of data, evidence, or other reportable observations in any course or other exercise for credit.
Impermissible collaboration: The violation of the rules on acceptable collaboration on projects, papers, exercises, or examinations set by a faculty member or Law School committee.
Tampering with materials: Removing, hiding, or altering library materials or stealing another person’s materials.
Facilitation of academic dishonesty: Facilitating academic dishonesty by enabling another to engage in such behavior.
In further clarification and recognition of the standards of academic conduct to be met, students sign the following language of certification, Student Certification of Examination Performance, when submitting any exam, and Student Certification of Written Work when submitting work for credit.

The Faculty’s resolution on the principles of academic honesty by which students are expected to abide, as well as the Student Certification of both written work and exam performance are available here.

Reporting Procedure

If you encounter a situation of potential academic dishonesty in the course of your teaching at Columbia Law School, please contact Andrea Saavedra, Associate Dean of Student and Registration Services, who can advise you on possible courses of action.

Effective August 1, 2025, Columbia Law School adopts this interim policy on Generative AI, consistent with Columbia University’s Generative AI policy.

Students affirm compliance with this policy by signing the Student Certification of Examination and/or Written Work Product. If you have any uncertainty regarding permissible use of Generative AI tools for school-related work, you must consult with your faculty instructor or research advisor before use.

Policy Text:

Definition.

Generative AI includes any machine-based tool designed to help write, rewrite, or restructure language from user questions and prompts. Prohibited tools include, for example, Bard, ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, along with embedded tools in programs such as Grammarly or Microsoft Copilot. Generative AI is distinct from software that helps search for and extract information from data sources for use in research.
Default Prohibition.

Use of Generative AI is prohibited in (a) any exam or final paper or (b) for aid in drafting any part of work submitted for credit, even if the use is fully documented.

Commentary: You must not prompt or engage with Generative AI in any way during any exam. You must write every word of your exam answer. Also, you may not use Generative AI to write part or all of a paper, nor may you copy or paraphrase output from Generative AI and present it as your own writing. It violates this policy to use Generative AI even if you openly acknowledge and fully document your use.
Permitted uses.
- The Law School and University Generative AI policies are default rules. This means individual instructors can, and indeed are, encouraged to tailor their own more permissive policies, so long as their policies are stated in writing in the syllabus.
  
  Commentary: The goal of this policy is to give instructors maximum flexibility to experiment with new Generative AI uses in legal education, while ensuring all students have advance written notice of the policy that applies to them. Instructors may, for example, permit specific uses of Generative AI if students show how and where they rely on it; or alternatively they may prohibit uses otherwise permitted under this policy.
- Students may use Generative AI to aid in studying, brainstorming, or to identify typographical errors.
  
  Commentary: Some uses of Generative AI are allowed, unless prohibited by your instructor. For example, you may use a tool like ChatGPT to help prepare an exam outline or to summarize arguments regarding a legal controversy. Also, you may use Generative AI to brainstorm ideas or a bibliography for a paper, or to help identify typographical errors (but not to write, edit, revise, or translate your text). The key is that these permitted uses are not categorically different from uncontroversial, already-existing ways to get help with studying or writing, such as asking professors, professional contacts, or Google, provided the written work product remains solely your own. (Use of Microsoft’s spell- and grammar-check, Westlaw’s copy-with-reference, and Lexis’s copy-citation features are permitted). Note: you have an affirmative duty to ask your instructor for clarification if you have any doubt about whether your intended use of Generative AI is permitted.
Data protection.

All uses of Generative AI must comply with University policy protecting confidential and personal information.

Commentary: Concerns about the use of Generative AI are most pressing in law clinic and client-related contexts, but they are present as well in any law school setting where you may be inputting sensitive information into Generative AI prompts. By default, all text you enter into Generative AI tools is retained, used for training, and potentially outputted to other users in response to queries. You can easily find instructions online for how to disable retention and training use of your data (though not all tools allow opt-out). Any information that is confidential or personal must not be shared with any Generative AI tool unless you have disabled retention and training use of your data.
Violations.

Unauthorized use of AI shall be treated as unauthorized assistance and/or plagiarism prohibited by the University’s Standards & Discipline Policy and the Law School’s Principles of Academic Integrity. If an instructor encounters potential violations of this policy, or their class-specific policy, they will contact the Dean of Students, who will provide guidance on disciplinary procedures and consequences.

Additional Information

By resolution and vote of the faculty, students are required to affirm language of certification when submitting any examination or when submitting written work for credit. Individual faculty members are responsible for ensuring that appropriate certification is submitted in connection with all written work other than exams. Guidelines for the self-certification of student work can be found in the Academic Rules under Section 7 of the J.D. rules: "Supplement: Rules Regarding Written Work." Please note that all students were made aware of this policy and the implications of its violations at the beginning of their time at the Law School.
If you encounter a situation of potential academic dishonesty in the course of your teaching at Columbia Law School, please contact Andrea Saavedra, Associate Dean of Student and Registration Services, who can advise you on possible courses of action.

If you agree to supervise a student for research or writing credit, you will be asked to approve the appropriate Research and Writing Registration Form before their registration can be completed.

Students are responsible for submitting the digital forms on LawNet and nce the forms are submitted, you are able to approve their forms in LawNet.

Information on the digital registration forms can be found at https://www.law.columbia.edu/academics/registration-services/course-selection-registration/registration-forms.

The faculty has by formal resolution expressed its collective sense regarding the ordinary scope of a paper that serves as the primary basis of evaluation for a two-credit seminar. Such a paper should range approximately from 6500 to 8000 words, although shorter papers reporting extensive empirical, archival, or like work could also be appropriate. We are aware that some of you do require more extensive work than this from your students and we stress that you should feel free to continue to do so if you think it appropriate, though you should be aware that your requirements will be more rigorous than average.

Written work submitted as part of the requirements for a course or seminar is graded on the same basis as the course or seminar. In addition:

For Major and Minor Writing Credit, grading is Credit/Fail only. Instructors are asked to confirm that the student satisfied these degree requirements by entering the grade of CR
For Supervised Research, grading can be either by regular letter grade or by Credit/Fail. This is decided in consultation with the instructor at the outset of the project, and should be indicated on the Research and Writing Registration form that the student and the instructor complete.
For the LL.M. Writing Project, papers must be graded on the standard letter scale for Law courses, either as part of the requirements for a seminar or under the framework of Supervised Study. Credit/Fail or other non-evaluative grades are not permitted. For administrative purposes, however, students will additionally register in a zero-point offering entitled “LL.M. Writing Project,” for which the supervising instructor is asked to enter the grade of “CR” (credit) to confirm formally that the student satisfied this degree requirement.