Agenda
• Questions?
• IRAC:
•
•
•
•
Issue
Rule/Relevant Law
Analysis
Conclusion
• Writing Assignment
IRAC
• What is it?
▫ A method for analyzing and communicating
legal issues.
▫ An equation.
• Why do we care?
▫ These are the fundamental building blocks of
legal analysis and the basic amount of
information that you will be expected to analyze
and convey to an attorney, client, and/or the
court.
IRAC
• ISSUE
▫ What facts and circumstances brought these
parties to court?
• RULE
▫ What is the governing law for the issue?
• ANALYSIS
▫ Does the rule apply to these unique facts?
• CONCLUSION
▫ How does the court's holding modify the rule of
law?
FIRAC/AIRAC
• Facts—some like to use the FIRAC method that
includes a section for the facts of the case.
• Answer(s)—answer(s) to the brief question
asked at the beginning, then IRAC. Remember
questions should be written in a yes or no
answerable format.
IRAC Variations
• MIRAT (Material Facts, Issues, Rules, Application, Tentative
Conclusion)
• IDAR (Issues, Doctrine, Application, Result)
• CRAAC (Conclusion, Rules, Analogous Case (if applicable), Application,
Conclusion. This is mostly used for writing assignments.
• CREAC (Conclusion, Rules, Explanation, Application, Conclusion)
• TREACC (Topic, Rule, Explanation, Analysis, Counterarguments,
Conclusion)
• TRIAccC (Topic, Rule, Issues, Analysis [cases, conclusion], Conclusion)
• CRuPAC (Conclusion, Rule, Proof, Analysis, Conclusion)
• ILAC (Issue, Law, Application, Conclusion)
• CIRAC (Conclusion, Issue, Rules, Application, Conclusion)
• IPAAC (Issue, Principle, Authority, Application, Conclusion)
• IRREAC (Issue, Rule, Rule Explanation, Application, Conclusion)
Facts/Issue
• The Facts of a case suggest an Issue.
▫ The key to issue spotting is being able to
identify which facts raise which issues. Because
of the complexity of the law, the elimination or
addition of one fact (such as time of day or
whether someone was drinking) can eliminate
or add issues to a case thereby raising an
entirely different rule of law.
Rule
• The issue is covered by a Rule of law.
▫ Simply put, the rule is the law. The rule could be
common law, statutes, regulations—any and all
primary mandatory authority.
Analysis
• Compare the facts to the rule to form the
Analysis.
▫ This important area is really relatively simple.
For every relevant fact, you need to ask whether
the fact helps to prove or disprove the rule. If a
rule requires that a certain circumstance is
present in order for the rule to apply, then the
absence of that circumstance helps you reach
the conclusion that the rule does not apply.
Conclusion
• From the analysis you come to a Conclusion
as to whether the rule applies to the facts.
▫ The conclusion should always be stated as a probable
result. Courts differ widely on a given set of facts, and
there is usually flexibility for different interpretations.
Be sure to look at the validity of the opponent's
position. If your case has flaws, it is important to
recognize those weaknesses and identify them.
Example
Torts Hypothetical
• Facts:
• Peter and Doug are neighbors who hate one another.
• One day, Doug is nailing some boards together on the
common sidewalk that he shares with Peter.
• In a classic slapstick comedy move, Doug picks up a
board just as Peter is passing behind him and swings
around so that the back end hits Peter in the head.
• The smack in the head causes substantial injury to
Peter.
• Issue:
• Is existing malice between two people enough to show
the intent necessary for liability for battery?
Example
• Rule:
• The three elements of battery are: 1) a harmful touching
of another person 2) the defendant caused the touching
to occur directly or indirectly and 3) the touching was
intentional.
Example
• Analysis:
• Element 1) The hitting of Peter in the head with a board
is considered harmful since it caused substantial injury.
• Element 2) Doug directly caused the injury since he was
physically holding the board as it swung into Peter.
• Element 3) The question of whether Doug intended to
hit Peter is a matter of fact that must be decided by a
jury. The fact that Doug hated Peter may weigh in the
matter but is not dispositive. Doug must have known
that Peter was behind him and intentionally swung the
board so as to purposefully harm Peter.
Example
• Conclusion:
• Without further evidence, the facts do not appear to
indicate the intent necessary for Peter to sue Doug for
the tort of battery.
Example
• Whether someone can sue for battery as a result of inhaling secondhand smoke. The issue we will look at is whether there is contact,
which is required for a battery claim.
• Issue
• First state the question or problem that you are trying to answer
(what might bring the parties into court). This can be in the form
of a question or a statement depending on what your reader
prefers. Examples:
▫ “There is an issue as to whether contact occurred when the
plaintiff inhaled the second-hand smoke.”
▫ “Does contact occur when one inhales second-hand smoke
created by another?”
• However, in legal memos, one may state the conclusion up front (in
case the reader is too busy to read through the entire analysis.
Some professors also prefer that you state the conclusion up front.
Example
• Rule
• State the rule or legal principle. This may take the form of stating
the elements required for a prima facie case.
▫ “The prima facie case for battery requires the following elements:
an act, intent, contact, causation, and harm.”
• Some attorneys do not want you to explicitly state the rule (i.e.,
“The rule is…”). Rather, they prefer that you imply it in your
answer. In other words, cut to the chase by focusing your rule
statement on the part of the rule or element that is at issue.
▫ “The offense of battery requires contact with the plaintiff’s
person.”
Example
• Analysis
• This is where you state your evidence and explain how you will
arrive at your conclusion. You may cite other cases, discuss policy
implications, and discuss (discount?) cases that run counter to your
conclusion.
• Make sure that you weigh both sides and make counterarguments
where appropriate.
• Use case law, analogizing and distinguishing, and policy (for
example, the goals of tort law) to work your way to a conclusion.
▫ “In Howe v. Ahn, the court held that noxious bus fumes inhaled
by a passerby constitute harmful and offensive contact.
Although the court has not extended this holding to a case
involving second-hand smoke, numerous cases have likened
second-hand smoke to air pollution (for example, Fox v.
Abernathy). Policy considerations also favor finding contact in
the present case. If one can prove harm as a result of inhaling
second-hand smoke, it is better for the smoker to compensate
the victim than burden the state.”
Example
• Conclusion
▫ “The court is likely to find that harmful contact occurs when a
smoker releases second-hand smoke into the air and that air is
inhaled by a bystander.”
Questions
• Any questions about any aspect of the course?
• Any questions on the writing assignment due on
Tuesday?
In next week’s Seminar, the last Seminar of the course, we will
discuss ethical issues posed in the following assignments: the
scenario and the ethics exercise. You may also raise questions
concerning your Final Writing Assignment.