LAWBOOST
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND COURSE EXPLANATION ....................................................... 1
SAMPLE ASSIGNMENT .................................................................................................. 2
MODEL SAMPLE ANSWER............................................................................................ 3
IRAC’S STRUCTURE ....................................................................................................... 4
ASSIGNMENT ................................................................................................................... 5
LAWBOOST-IRAC PAMPHLET
©2010 MICHAEL SANTANA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
WWW.LAWBOOST.COM
1
INTRODUCTION
Law School & IRAC Legal Writing
First-year law students often complain that the grades they receive do not accurately
reflect their understanding of law school coursework. Many of these students are correct.
Typically, the inconsistency between the student’s understanding of a subject and the
grades received comes down to writing skills.
Grades in many first-semester courses are based solely on a final exam, with students
often receiving no other opportunity to have their written work reviewed for content and
style. Even an excellent legal writing course in the first semester may not provide
sufficient opportunity for students to develop strong legal writing skills, as that course is
just one out of four or five courses in the first semester.
Law school success and professional legal success stem from developing the right skills,
and writing is generally considered to be the most important of these skills. This
pamphlet’s purpose is to present the IRAC writing structure used in law school.
This Pamphlet
This short pamphlet provides a sample first-semester law school essay assignment and its
sample answer. Additionally, it provides a second first-semester law school essay
assignment. If you choose, you can submit a written answer to the second assignment to
Michael Santana (michael.santana@lawboost.com), and receive a free written critique of
your answer within one week. TO RECEIVE THE FREE WRITTEN CRITIQUE,
YOUR ANSWER MUST BE SUBMITTED BY APRIL 16, 2010.
LawBoost
LawBoost (www.lawboost.com) provides a three-day online law school preparatory
course that prepares students entering law school for legal analysis and legal writing. For
the course, students are not required to be online at a specific time. Instead, students are
emailed daily transcripts which provide guidance for the course assignments the students
are required to do. Throughout the course, LawBoost's professors are immediately
available to answer questions by telephone and email.
In LawBoost, students will have the opportunity to perform four first-semester law school
writing assignments, including two drafts of an IRAC assignment, and to have three of
those assignments critiqued by a real law school professor. These assignments help
LawBoost’s students develop a strong foundation in the important skills of case briefing,
case analysis, case summaries, and legal writing.
LawBoost looks forward to working with you. Good luck in law school!
LAWBOOST-IRAC PAMPHLET
©2010 MICHAEL SANTANA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
WWW.LAWBOOST.COM
2
SAMPLE ASSIGNMENT
Here is an example of a first-semester writing assignment; the next page contains its
sample answer. The sample assignment’s instructions would be as follows:
Based on the cases just below, identify the issue raised in the fact pattern on this
page and answer it. The cases used to address the assignment below are
accessible under the “Course Cases” link located under the “Course Information”
section of www.lawboost.com.
Applicable Cases
Estate of Alcorn, Estate of Hunsaker, Marriage of Mahaffey, Estate of Sartain, Estate of
Schanbacher, Estate of Swanson, and Estate of Vandenhook.
Facts
Kendra Pendleton and Tom Shipton, both Montana residents, met in January 2009 and
dated regularly during the first six months of that year. On the weekend of June 18,
2009, the couple rented a cabin, and on Sunday June 20, 2009, Tom woke up a little
earlier than Kendra and gently nudged her awake. When she woke up he asked her to get
out of bed and stand up. Then he got down on one knee and said, “I don’t believe a
justice of the peace or minister is necessary to make a bond of marriage between two
people. I want us to be together forever. Will you be my wife?” Kendra said yes and
from June 20, 2009 forward, the parties held themselves out in public as husband and
wife.
On November 8, 2009, Kendra ended the relationship and asked Tom to leave the marital
home, which Kendra had purchased before the marriage. As Tom was leaving, Kendra
handed Tom a piece of paper and said, “In case you thought I did not know.” The paper
was a photocopy of an order dated October 8, 2009 granting Tom a divorce from Ms.
Tammy Brethren.
Is the parties’ June 19, 2009 agreement to marry valid?
Brief Comment on the Sample Answer
The sample answer on the next page provides citations that identify the legal authorities
used to answer the issue. This was done so the reader could locate the exact source of the
law being used to support the answer. This course does not teach students how to cite
cases; proper citation will be addressed early in your law school career.
LAWBOOST-IRAC PAMPHLET
©2010 MICHAEL SANTANA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
WWW.LAWBOOST.COM
3
MODEL SAMPLE ANSWER
¶1
Did Kendra Pendleton and Thomas Shipton have the ability to consent to common
law marriage if Tom was married when he asked Kendra to be his wife on June 20, 2009?
¶2
Common law marriage is recognized in Montana under § 40-1-403, Mont. Code
Ann. (2003), and exists if two people: (1) have the capacity to consent, (2) consent, (3)
cohabitate and engage in public repute. Estate of Vandenhook, 259 Mont. 201 (1993).
The first element, capacity to consent, cannot exist if there is a previously existing
marriage. See § 40-1-401(1)(a), and (2), Mont. Code Ann. (2003). Upon the first
marriage’s termination, the second marriage can immediately come into existence if the
other elements of common law marriage exist. See Estate of Schanbacher, 182 Mont.
176 (1979); Estate of Alcorn, 263 Mont 353 (1994).
¶3
In Estate of Schanbacher, the court held that the decedent had the capacity to
consent to his second marriage after his first wife’s death. 182 Mont. 176, 181 (1979).
Decedent married his first wife in 1916 and remained married to her until her death in
1973. Id. at 177. Decedent married appellant, his second wife, by wedding ceremony in
1952 and lived with her until his death in 1976. Id. at 177, 180. In upholding the second
marriage upon the first wife’s death the court commented that § 40-1-401, Mont. Code
Ann. (2003), is based on a progressive policy and stated that once parties agree to marry
they do not need to agree again once the marriage impediment is eliminated. Id. at 183;
citing Matthews v. Britton, 303 F.2d 408, 409 (1962).
¶4
In Estate of Alcorn, the court held that the parties had the capacity to consent to a
common law marriage upon the termination of the respondent’s first marriage. 263 Mont
353 (1994). Respondent and decedent lived together from August 1981 until decedent’s
death in 1991, and respondent’s divorce in a prior marriage was finalized in May 1985.
Id. at 354. The court’s decision in Alcorn was based in part on the plain language of §
40-1-401(2), Mont. Code Ann. (2003), which states that parties cohabitating after
removal of an impediment are lawfully married as of the date the impediment is removed.
Id.
¶5
Tom and Kendra had the capacity to consent to marriage in the present case after
Tom’s divorce in a prior marriage was finalized. The parties consented to marriage on
June 20, 2009, and held themselves out as married until November 2009, despite Tom
being married to Tammy Brethren until October 8, 2009. The present case is similar to
Schanbacher and Alcorn because in both precedent cases, courts held that the parties had
the capacity to consent to a second marriage when their previous marriages ended.
Additionally, under Schanbacher, Tom and Kendra do not need to restate their consent to
marry once they have capacity, even if their consent occurred before the capacity to
consent existed. 182 Mont. at 183; citing Matthews v. Britton, 303 F.2d 408, 409. Once
Tom’s divorce from Tammy Brethren was finalized on October 8, 2009, the parties had
the capacity to consent and their consent to marry from June 20, 2009 became valid.
LAWBOOST-IRAC PAMPHLET
©2010 MICHAEL SANTANA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
WWW.LAWBOOST.COM
4
IRAC’S STRUCTURE
In legal writing, the overall IRAC structure of your answer should be as follows:
1. Issue
The legal question presented by the facts.
2. Rule
The law applicable to the issue.
A) Elements: Elements of the rule of law at issue.
B) Element Definition: The law is defined or explained.
C) Case Law Explanation: Case law examples of the applicable law.
3. Application
The present case is analogized to or distinguished from the case law to support the
argument’s main point.
4. Conclusion
The Conclusion is the answer’s main point.
LAWBOOST-IRAC PAMPHLET
©2010 MICHAEL SANTANA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
WWW.LAWBOOST.COM
5
ASSIGNMENT
Based on the cases below, write an IRAC answer for the issue raised in Owenby v.
Evergreen Country Club. Your answer should look like the MODEL SAMPLE
ANSWER on page 3. This assignment has an 850-word limit. A written critique for
this assignment will be provided within one week after you submit it. TO
RECEIVE THE FREE WRITTEN CRITIQUE, YOUR ANSWER MUST BE
SUBMITTED BY APRIL 16, 2010.
If you have any questions, please feel free to email Michael Santana at
michael.santana@lawboost.com.
Applicable Cases
Black v. Kroger Co., Grant v. Stop-N-Go Market of Texas, Inc., H.E. Butt Grocery
Company v. Saldivar, Martinez v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., and Morales v. Lee.
The cases are attached to the email you received which contained the pamphlet.
FACT PATTERN OF OWENBY v. EVERGREEN COUNTRY CLUB
Corey Clark was bartending at the Evergreen Country Club at a fundraiser when he
noticed that two guests, Sherry Owenby and Ian Bussey, were drunk and becoming
obnoxious. On their fifth trip to the bar in a two-hour period, Corey refused to serve
them anymore alcohol. An argument ensued between Corey and the couple, and after
about 20 seconds, the couple stepped just to the side of where they tried to make their
order, but continued to say things to Corey.
As Corey tried to ignore Sherry and Ian, the next person in line ordered a bottle of
champagne that cost $150. When Corey realized he did not have champagne glasses
within arm’s reach, he turned around and to get the glasses from the cabinets behind the
bar. At that moment there was an announcement from the center of the room that drew
all the guests’ attention to the center of the room including the attention of guests on the
bar line.
Corey had his back to the bar only a few seconds, but when he turned back around he
noticed that the champagne bottle that he thought he put on the bar was gone. Corey then
noticed Sherry and Ian walking towards the valet parking attendant area. Corey also
noticed that Sherry was holding a large handbag that seemed to be weighed down. Corey
immediately summoned Beth Harrison, the country club’s manager, and told Beth that he
believed that Sherry and Ian stole the expensive champagne bottle.
Beth quickly went to the valet parking attendant area and confronted Sherry and Ian
about the champagne bottle and told them that she wanted to look through Sherry’s
handbag. Sherry refused. Beth then said she would call the police, and instructed the
LAWBOOST-IRAC PAMPHLET
©2010 MICHAEL SANTANA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
WWW.LAWBOOST.COM
6
attendant not to retrieve the couple’s car because she was going to call the police if
Sherry did not allow Beth to search Sherry’s handbag. After a 10-minute argument,
Sherry allowed Beth to search her bag. Beth did not find the champagne bottle,
apologized to the couple, and allowed them to leave.
Sherry subsequently sued the country club for false imprisonment, and at a pre-trial
hearing the country club’s attorney argued that the threat of calling the police is not
sufficient grounds to establish the cause of action. Sherry is a human resources
professional with a master’s degree.
You are the judge’s law clerk, research the defense attorney’s claim and instruct her
whether it is valid.
LAWBOOST-IRAC PAMPHLET
©2010 MICHAEL SANTANA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
WWW.LAWBOOST.COM