1. Organizing Your Legal Analysis
Using I.R.A.C.
Issue
Rule
Application
Conclusion

2. The Legal Method
Remember, we have discussed that there is a method for thinking and writing like a lawyer.
And that while content is also important, the legal method (of thinking and analyzing) is equally if not more important.
The acronym representing this legal method is . . .

3. I.R.A.C.
Issue
Rule
Application
Conclusion
But why use I.R.A.C.?

4. The Forms of Arguments:
Reasoning by analogy
Factor Analysis
Generalizations
The Deductive Argument
What are the implicit limitations of these kinds arguments?

5. The Deductive Entailment
The deductive argument is the most complete relationship of logical support.
A deductive argument is valid or logically sound because its conclusion follows directly from its premises.
The only way to attack a deductive argument is by challenging the premises.

6. A Classic Example of the Deductive Argument is called the Syllogism
All legal writing teachers are mortal
Powell is a legal writing teacher
Therefore, Powell is mortal
Major Premise
Minor Premise
Conclusion
A=B, B=C, A=C
The Transitivity Principle

7. The Legal Syllogism Major Premise [Legal rule] Minor Premise
[statute]
[holding from a single case]
Major Premise
[Legal rule]
[principle derived from a series of cases]
Minor Premise
[Set of facts in your dispute]
Conclusion
[Your determination of whether the facts satisfy the legal rule]

8. Whether the contract entered into between Hawkins and McGee was enforceable.
Major Premise
To be enforceable, a contract must be supported by consideration.
---Attorneys for both sides will try to persuade the judge to reach a certain conclusion by choosing particular formulations of the major and minor premises over others.
---Let’s consider a case decided after Scott with similar facts, in which Smith is prosecuted
---The defense could attack this argument’s minor premise, but wouldn’t get very far
---The better approach is to go after the major premise
---could try to restate the major premise, using other language in the Scott opinion
---the better approach, though, is to attack Scott
Minor Premise
2. The contract between Hawkins and McGee was supported by consideration.
3. Therefore, the contract between
Hawkins and McGee was enforceable.
Conclusion

9. IRAC IRAC is also an organizational device to guide to your writing.
In a written analysis you should:
Issue:
Rule:
Application:
Conclusion:
Identify the issue
IRAC is an organizational device: use it to make certain that you’re making deductive arguments
State rules in rule sentences or case discussions.
Apply the rule to the relevant facts
Conclude whether the facts satisfy the legal rule

10. Issue
Rule
Application
Conclusion
Identifying Issues
I is for Identifying the Issue Or you can provide a short conclusion of the problem (CRAC).
This is an introduction which briefs the reader on the precise issue which you are about to discuss.
Typically, this introduction will take one or two sentences.
We will return to the legal issue in Exercise 2-H(1) because sometime it is easier to state the issue more precisely AFTER identifying the rule of law.
issue: a question that an adjudicator --- like a judge --- must resolve to determine the outcome of a legal dispute
---we’re only concerned with material issues --- or those that could potentially affect the outcome of a dispute

11. Rule Identification Choosing the Source
Issue
Rule
Application
Conclusion
Rule Identification
Inform the reader of the pertinent law to the client’s situation in accordance with weight of authority.
From where might the rule of law be derived?
Choosing the Source
Favor primary (statutes, cases, regs, cases, etc.) and mandatory authority.
Favor cases from higher courts.
Favor factually and legally similar cases.

12. Rule/Issue Identification
From where was the rule of law derived in Exercise 2-H(1)?
What is the rule of law in Smith v. Allen?
Now, what is the issue in your case?
Whether Peterson, the father, created an unreasonable/ forseeable risk by leaving his tools in the basement.
But what is an unreasonable risk?

13. Analyzing Legal Rules
Upon what will you prediction depend upon in determining whether a risk is unreasonable/ forseeable? (i.e. What analytical categories will the court use?)
1) By examining the tool/object for its obvious and intrinsic danger AND
2) By considering accessibility of the tool/object.

14. Drafting the Rules Section
Issue
Rule
Application
Conclusion
Drafting the Rules Section
What should be in your rules section?
Remember! when the rule is derived from a case:
and the facts are important, use a case discussion.
and the facts are unimportant, prepare a rule sentence.
Remember! when the rule is derived from a statute, quote the statute and list the elements
You will often use both rule sentences and case discussions in your rules section.

15. Issue
Rule
Application
Conclusion
Case Discussions
1) Introduce the case and set the stage by giving a sentence or two of the relevant facts:
In Smith v. Allen, [cite], a father left a golf club lying on the ground in his backyard, accessible to where children played. His son swung the club and accidentally injured a playmate. The injured child sued the father alleging that he failed in his duty to protect the children from unreasonable risks.
---statute: quote the statute and identify the elements
---cases: if the facts are important, prepare a case discussion; if they’re not important, prepare a rule sentence

16. Case Discussions 2) Give the court’s holding:
Issue
Rule
Application
Conclusion
Case Discussions
2) Give the court’s holding:
The court held that the father was not negligent for failing to protect the plaintiff from an unreasonable risk.
---statute: quote the statute and identify the elements
---cases: if the facts are important, prepare a case discussion; if they’re not important, prepare a rule sentence

17. Case Discussions 3) Give helpful reasoning:
Issue
Rule
Application
Conclusion
Case Discussions
3) Give helpful reasoning:
Even though the golf club was easily accessible to children, it was not an intrinsically or obviously dangerous tool. Id. at [point cite].
What do you think of the court’s statement in Smith v. Allen that . . .
“Unlike a knife, for example, [a golf club] is not commonly used as a weapon”?
---statute: quote the statute and identify the elements
---cases: if the facts are important, prepare a case discussion; if they’re not important, prepare a rule sentence

18. Applying Rules to Facts
Issue
Rule
Application
Conclusion
Applying Rules to Facts
Recall the form of the legal syllogism:
Major Premise
[Legal rule]
Minor Premise
[Set of facts in your dispute]
[Your determination of whether the facts satisfy the legal rule]
Conclusion
Now we’re trying to figure out whether the facts in our dispute satisfy the legal rule.

19. Drafting the Application Section
Most of the time, it will not be enough to identify the rule of law from cases and then apply the rule to your case. Using the court’s rule/analytical categories, you must
draw links between the law and facts and
point out relevant similarities and relevant distinctions with precedent cases.
This is called reasoning by analogy

20. Obvious and Intrinsic Danger

21. Accessibility

22. Patterns in Applying Rules
Issue
Rule
Application
Conclusion
Patterns in Applying Rules
Remember, rule sentences, case discussions of precedent cases and statutory rule paragraphs all go in the rule section.
Analyze the facts in terms of the rule’s analytical categories. (Fruit analogy)
Counter-arguments go at the end of the respective application section.
If you have sub-issues, or elements of a rule, you will use IRAC to discuss and apply each of those as well.

23. Applying Facts to Statutory Elements
If your problem involves a statute be sure to :
make references to important words in the statute;
dispose of or discuss separately the application of the facts to each element in the statute;
and also discuss any relevant counter-arguments or policy considerations.

24. Drafting the Conclusion
Issue
Rule
Application
Conclusion
Drafting the Conclusion
Conclude whether the facts satisfy the rule.
The conclusion is grounded in prior analysis of law, precedent and facts.
Take positions on all issues. Contingent conclusions are fine (“likely”).

25. Drafting the Conclusion
The Court will likely find . . .
Compared with the golf club, is the hammer an obvious and intrinsic danger?
Compared with the club in the backyard was the hammer accessible?
Did Peterson create an unreasonable risk by leaving the tools in his basement?