Using IRAC

IRAC stands for the "Issue, Rule, Application (Analysis), Conclusion" structure of legal analysis. An effective essay follows some form of the IRAC structure where it is organized around an "issue", a "rule", an "application or analysis", and a "conclusion" for each and every issue and sub-issue identified as a legal problem.

The objective of a legal brief is to reduce the information for quick review. Briefing a case involves:

1. Grasping the problem the court faced (the issue);
2. Taking note of the relevant law the court used to solve it (the rule);
3. Understanding how the court applied the rule to the facts (the application or “analysis”);
4. Stating the outcome (the conclusion).

Briefing a case also helps you be ready to not only discuss the case, but to compare and contrast it to other cases involving a similar issue.

The Issue

To grasp the issue:

1. Articulate the issue by formulating the legal question presented in the facts. To find the issue ask yourself:
   1. What is in controversy in these facts
   2. You need to know the law in order to find the legal question in the facts
2. Use the "whether, when" structure to help you isolate and write an issue statement
   1. You may begin with "The issue is whether....."  - identify and state the legal conclusion you want the court to reach e.g.
      • Don committed battery
   2. then connect to the "relevant" facts ( the relevant facts being those facts which will determine the outcome),
      • when he pushed pam even though he knew she was in no danger of being hit by the bicyclist 

The Rule

State the controlling rule of the law. After you have identified the issue, you must articulate the rule. A useful guideline to writing the rule is to write enough about the law to provide the context in which you will analyze the facts. The rule and the facts are inextricably linked. Your analysis of the facts will not make sense unless you have first identified the rule which determines the legal meaning to be attributed to those facts. 

Use building blocks for writing the rule of law by considering

1. elements
2. definitions
3. exceptions to the general rule
4. limitations to the rule
5. defenses

When writing, follow a hierarchy of concepts by

1. moving from the general to the specific
2. defining each legal term of art

Identify

• The consequences of applying the rule – what will happen?
• What are the consequences of this rule in this situation?

Which leads you to consider:

• What does application of the rule mean here? What will be its effect?
• This question helps transition to analysis

The Analysis

The analysis or application is the heart of the discussion. It is where you examine the inferences/implications raised by the facts in light of the rule. As you write your analysis, work from your articulation of the rule to guide your application of the facts.

Here your statement of the rule provides a blueprint to follow for your discussion of the facts. You simply match up each element/factor you’ve identified in the rule with a fact, using the word “because” to make the connection between rule and fact.

Examples of how “because” works to change recitation to application:

What not to write:
In this case, while Pete the police officer was giving Dan a sobriety test, he noticed that Dan fit the description of an eyewitness to the robbery, giving the police officer probable cause to arrest Dan.

What you should write:
In this case, Pete the police officer realized that Dan fit the description of the suspect, providing probable cause for arrest, because Dan was extremely tall at 6'4", was wearing a green and tan sweater with purple patches and pointy-toed alligator cowboy boots, fitting the description provided by the eyewitness to the robbery.

What not to write:
ABC Inc. engaged Dr. Jones to develop a drug that reduced hair loss. Dr. Jones worked in his own laboratory, hired and fired his own assistants and set their working hours as well as his own. He meets with the President of ABC every Friday morning to discuss progress on the project and at this time, Dr. Jones submits his timesheet for payment. The President pays Dr. Jones weekly.

What you should write:
Here, Dr. Jones can be considered an independent consultant for ABC Inc. because he completes all the research and development work in his own laboratory, in a separate facility from that of ABC, where he has direct control over the employees because he hired his own assistants, setting their work hours. He also exercises direct control over his own work because he sets his own work hours and only meets with ABC once a week. Further, since he only meets with the President of ABC on a weekly basis to discuss progress on development of the hair loss product, the President does not supervise Dr. Jones on a daily basis as to the work which goes on in the laboratory.

The Conclusion

Is something not clear to you? If the court’s reasoning seems off, question it. If you see a conflict or a result that doesn’t comport with the reasoning, note it. It is likely to show up in class discussion. State your conclusion with respect to each issue. There is no right or wrong answer. There is only logical analysis based on the rule and the facts which lead to a reasonable conclusion.

Note: Repeat the process for each issue you identify — each issue forms the basis for a separate IRAC analysis.

Sources

1. Academic Development Program
2. Wael Badawy