Organizing Your
Legal Analysis
Using I.R.A.C.
Issue
Rule
Application
Conclusion
The Legal Method

Remember on the first day of class, I told
you that there is a method for thinking and
writing like a lawyer.

And that while content is also important,
the legal method is equally if not more
important.
I.R.A.C.
 This
legal method is represented by
an acronym:
 Issue
 Rule
 Application
 Conclusion
The Elements of IRAC

I is for Identifying the Issue (some
lawyers prefer a short conclusion of the
problem- CRAC)
–
This is an introduction which briefs the
reader on the precise issue which you
are about to discuss.
–
Typically, this introduction will take one
or two sentences.
IRAC EXAMPLE
 ISSUE

The issue is whether Howard Gavin
committed legal malpractice by failing to file
a timely notice of appeal in his
representation of Linda Pyle.
R stands for Rule Identification.

You should next inform the
reader of the pertinent law
to the client’s situation in
accordance with weight of
authority.

From where might the
rule of law be derived?
R stands for Rule Identification.

1) If the rule is derived from a case:
and the facts are important, prepare a case discussion.
– and the facts are unimportant, prepare a rule sentence.
Both rule sentences and case discussions may be helpful
–

2) If the rule is derived from a statute, quote the
statute and identify the elements.
3 Steps in Preparing
Case Discussions

1) Introduce the case and set the stage by
giving a sentence or two of the relevant
facts:

In Jacobson (citation), the lawyer failed to
file a timely claim before the medical
malpractice screening panel. The deadline
had been provided in the statute and
contained in the panel rules sent to all
litigants’ attorneys.
Preparing Case Discussions

2) Give the court’s holding:

The court held that a lawyer has a duty to
provide a client with representation that
meets or exceeds the standard of
professional skill and diligence “commonly
possessed and exercised by a reasonably
prudent lawyer in that jurisdiction.” (citation)
Preparing Case Discussions

3) Give helpful reasoning:

The court found that, because a reasonably
prudent lawyer in that jurisdiction would
have known the deadline, the lawyer had
committed legal malpractice, and awarded
damages to the client. (citation)
Remember !

Rule sentences, case discussions of
precedent cases and statutory rule
paragraphs all go in the rule section.

If you have sub-issues, or elements of a
rule,you will use IRAC to discuss and
apply each of those as well.
A stands for . . .
Application of the Rule
The heart of analysis is this application of
the law to your client’s facts.
Demonstrate how your facts meet the
factual conditions in the element of the
rule of law or the case you have cited.
Application to the facts
In the instant case, Gavin failed to timely file a
notice of appeal with the Court of Claims. Like the
medical malpractice screening panel, the Court of
Claims has deadlines for filing certain notices.
These deadlines are provided in the statute,
contained in the court rules and posted in the
court clerk’s office.
Any counter-arguments go at
the end of the respective application.
Applying Cases in the
Application Section:
–
You should compare the facts of your case
with the facts of the precedent cases;
–
draw links between the law and facts;
–
make references to important similarities/
differences with cases.
–
This is called reasoning by analogy
When Applying Facts to
Statutory Elements
–
Make references to important words in the
statute.
–
Discuss separately the application of the facts
to each element in the statute.
–
Discuss any relevant counter-arguments or
policy considerations.
C is for Conclusion:

Your IRAC discussion should close
with a statement of whether the
requirements of the element have or
can not be met.

The conclusion is grounded in prior analysis of
law, precedent and facts.
Conclusion

Therefore, like the court in Jacobson,
the court would likely find that Gavin
committed legal malpractice and award
damages to Pyle.
Why use I.R.A.C.?
The power of the DUCK!
The Deductive
Entailment

The deductive argument is the most complete
relationship of logical support.

A deductive argument is valid or logically sound
because its conclusion follows directly from its
premises.

The only way to attack a deductive argument is
by challenging the premises.
Syllogisms
The Classic Example of the
Deductive Argument

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

A=B, B=C, A=C


–
Transitivity
Parts of a Syllogism

Major premise: Broad statement of general
rule.

Minor premise: Narrower statement of
particular applicability.

Conclusion: Logical consequence of the major
and minor premises.
The Syllogism as a legal analysis

Remember in the case of legal writing, the
deductive argument takes the form of the
mnemonic device, I.R.A.C

Identify the Issue
Major premise is the Rule of law.
Minor premise is the Application of law to
specific facts.
The Conclusion is derived from the premises.



The ISSUE is whether
a contract entered into between Tim
and Mary is enforceable.

1. To be enforceable, a contract must be
supported by consideration. RULE

2. The contract between Tim and Mary is not
supported by consideration. APPLICATION

3. Therefore, the contract between Tim and
Mary is not enforceable.CONCLUSION
Other forms of arguments:
 Reasoning
by analogy
 Factor Analysis
 Generalizations
What are the implicit limitations do
these kinds arguments?