IRAC

src: i.ytimg.com

IRAC ( EYE-rak) is an acronym that generally stands for: Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion. It functions as a methodology for legal analysis. The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in law school and bar exams.

Video IRAC

Sections of an IRAC

Issue

Negligence - Duty of care - Liability for erroneous information - Information given by municipal authority about existence of road widening proposals - Information sought by solicitor for intending purchaser of land - Telephone inquiry - Written request - Reply omitting reference to road widening proposals. Damages - Measure of damages for negligent mis-statement.

Rule

The Rule section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue at hand. The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules pertinent in deciding the issue stated. Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case precedent and statute. The information included in the rules section depends heavily on the specificity of the question at hand. If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to include rules specific to that jurisdiction. Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear delineation of rules that are in holding, and binding based on the authority of the hierarchy of the court, being ratio decidendi, and being the majority ruling, or simply persuasive. There are occasions when rules are adopted on the basis they are the only clearly articulated rules on the issue, in spite of being minority decisions, obiter dicta, and from lower courts, in other jurisdictions, which have never been contradicted.

The rules help make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand using the facts of the case. The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules.

Application

The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand. This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis. It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented. The application/analysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand. It is useful to think like a lawyer, arguing the facts of the matter from both sides while sticking to the rules before coming to a decision.

Conclusion

... or simply making it a close call and identifying whether it is decided by the tribunal of fact or is a matter of law to be decided by the judge. The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the question presented in the issue section of the IRAC. It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis. This section restates the issue and provides the final answer. Conclusion is a vital process where the final calls are distributed upon the previous cases and are redefined by the judge.

Facts

The facts of a case are central to every step in the IRAC. It is from the facts that the issues are identified. It is the facts that lead to the identification of the most appropriate rules, and the rules which lead to the most useful way of construing the facts. Analysis requires the interpretation of facts and rules. The conclusion is a decision based on the application of the rules to the facts for each issue.

Maps IRAC

Criticism

IRAC has many proponents and opponents. The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis. Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning, therefore, the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool.

The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categories. The first category are those who object to using an IRAC because of its strict and unwieldy format. Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC such as MIRAT, IDAR, CREAC, TREACC, CRuPAC, ISAAC and ILAC. Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format. A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity. They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning. It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity.

The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends to lead to overwriting, and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis. This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful, careful, well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer. The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus.

Legal Memo Format Irac | World of Example

src: www.ponywatches.com

An example IRAC

A generic IRAC on a law school exam would consist of an answer to a question. The following example demonstrates a generic IRAC as an answer to a question.

Person "A" walks into a grocery store and picks up a loaf of bread. He then stuffs the bread beneath his jacket. A security attendant sees him and follows him to the cash register. Person A passes through without stopping to pay for anything. The security attendant stops him at the gate. He detains person A while he interrogates him. Person A is unresponsive and uncooperative and in fact downright hostile to the charges being leveled at him by the security attendant. Person A is held for a period of two hours at the end of which it is found that he had actually put the loaf of bread back and was not stealing. Person A sues the grocery store for false imprisonment. Would person A prevail in court?

Paralegal Legal Writing: Using the IRAC Method - YouTube

src: i.ytimg.com

Variations

HIRAC (Heading, Issue, Rule, Analysis/Application, Conclusion)
FIRAC (Facts, Issues, Relevant Legal Provisions and Rules, Application of Rules, Conclusion)
MIRAT (Material Facts, Issues, Rules, Application, Tentative Conclusion).
IDAR (Issues, Doctrine, Application, Result).
AFGAN (Application, Facts, Grounds, Answer, Negotiation)
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)
TREAT (Thesis, Rule, [Rule] Explanation, [Rule] Application, Thesis)
TRRAC (Thesis, Rule Statement, Rule Explanation, Application, Conclusion)
CRuPAC (Conclusion, Rule, Proof, Analysis, Conclusion)
ILAC (Issue, Law, Application, Conclusion)
KUWAIT (Konclusion, Utility, Wording, Answer, Initiation, Thoughts)
CIRAC (Conclusion, Issue, Rules, Application, Conclusion)
IPAAC (Issue, Principle, Authority, Application, Conclusion)
CRAB (Conclusion Rule Analysis Basis)
IRREAC (Issue, Rule, Rule Explanation, Application, Conclusion)
CLEO (Claim, Law, Evaluation, Outcome)
IRACDD (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion, Defense, Damages).
CI/REXAC (Conclusion, Introductory/Roadmap (Issue and Rule), Explanation, Application, Conclusion)
BaRAC / BRAC (Bold Assertion, Rule, Application, Conclusion)