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 second- hand 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.