I recently read an answer to a first year law student’s
(hereinafter “1L” or ”student”) law school exam. While reading this particular
answer, I realized the issue is
whether this person had fully applied the IRAC method when formulating the
answer.
First, IRAC, short for Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion, is a legal writing form
that most law school professors prefer to see answers in, because this method dictates
the student to spot issues, state rules, and then apply the rules to the facts
to formulate a conclusion. Therefore this method first starts with requiring
the 1L to state the legal issue(s) or questions. Next, he or she formulates a
rule, hopefully mirroring or exacting the rule set forth in case law. The rule should follow the statement of issue
because an inapplicable rule will be of no help when the 1L gets to the
analysis section.
Here, not being confident with their issue or
rule does not make or break the method, because the law student may redeem himself
with stout legal analysis. Generally, the analysis section is worth the most
points. For instance, our legal minds are all different and therefore all
people will formulate slightly different issues and interpret case law into
different rules. Just consider as an example how Justices Ginsburg and Scalia diverge
when defining rules. Thus, in this section, the 1L is charged with using his legal
mind by applying the facts to the rules. In other words, he begins to act like
the high powered attorney that he plans on becoming one day. A helpful hint and
good practice in this section is to start sentences with the words: here; in
this instance; in this example; for instance and for example. These types of
words help the 1L to ensure he is applying the facts to the rule.
Last, state a conclusion. This may seem easy. However, the law student needs
to make sure that his conclusion answers the question presented or issue. Consequently,
if the 1L has spotted an issue, states an applicable rule, has adequately applied
the stated rule, the conclusion will most likely become the downstream result
of the method. Additionally, do not be discouraged when the conclusion has
changed from the initial conclusion as most law school questions, like real
legal issues, are not black and white, but in the gray area of the law. Meaning
they can be answered either way, negative or positive, for the plaintiff or defendant
or in favor of or against the client. In conclusion, to eloquently advocate for
a position is really about how one applies or distinguishes the facts to the law
rather than if they are right or wrong.
Normally, people do not do this every day. So
a 1L needs to train their mind to formulate answers in such a manner. It is ridiculous,
I know, because you probably enrolled in law school thinking you were going to
become a prose writer, but in order to be a good, or even mediocre, law student
you need to train your brain to do legal analysis. This is the whole point of
law school. Well there are other points too, like learning to think on one’s feet,
or that the Constitution exists and what a tort is, but those issues aside,
this is a pretty important piece of legal training.
Please note that IRAC is not the only method,
and therefore, if a particular school or professor requires something
different, be assured to follow that method. For example, CREAC (Conclusion,
Rule, Explanation, Application, Conclusion), which really just requires the
test taker to paste their conclusion above the issue in order to help them
really consider if the conclusion answers the issue or issues. I will not go
into these additional forms, because I cannot teach you everything.
