Building the Rule and Analysis Sections of an IRAC

Professors have started to give midterms, and it is time to really focus on the details of what should be included when writing a law school exam -- by this point in your law school career, you have heard one way to approach writing an exam is by using the IRAC format, and you probably know what that means. But, within the IRAC format, being able to properly articulate the rule of law and sufficiently analyze the facts from the hypothetical takes a lot of work and practice. You have probably practiced a few hypotheticals and know exactly what what should go into your IRAC, or do you? Below are some tips for making sure that you are including the relevant law and properly analyzing the facts your answers.

Your rule paragraph should include enough of a statement of law to resolve the general issue. Start with a general rule, and make sure to include a sufficient discussion of the law to provide an adequate context for your analysis of the question or controversy (i.e. have you provided the relevant exception or exclusion, are there any legal terms that need to be defined, etc.). You must identify enough of the relevant rule to provide an adequate context for your analysis of the facts in controversy -- your analysis will not make sense unless you have identified the rule which determines the legal meaning of those facts.

Once you have identified and explained the applicable rule, then you must examine the inferences and implications of the relevant facts in relation to the rule. Your analysis is a vital part of the discussion -- as you write your analysis, let the articulation of the rule guide your application of the facts.

Within your analysis, the best approach is to match up each element (or sub-element) in the rule to the relevant fact; and use the word "because" to make the connection between the rule and fact. Make use of every fact of consequence and make sure that each conclusion you make is supported by an explanation (ask yourself "why").

Use this approach to demonstrate your ability to engage in a thoughtful analysis -- this does not mean simply repeat the relevant facts from the fact pattern, but instead, you should explain to the reader the legal significance and consequence of each fact.

As the semester continues, build on these skills by continuing to practice hypothetical questions, and continue to reference Mastering the Law School Exam for tips on improving your writing skills. This extra effort will help you build upon the requisite skills, so that when it is time for finals, you will know exactly what should be included in your final exam.

Intro to IRAC

The vast majority of your exams in law school test your ability to "think like a lawyer" - in achieving this goal, you should master the IRAC structure of legal analysis; that is a structure that lays out the "Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion." IRAC can be an important guide for you because all professors want your exams to include well-reasoned arguments based on the analysis of the relevant issues and an application of the relevant facts. Generally, your answer will depend upon how you have articulated your understanding of the facts, recognized the issues, and explained the applicable rules - it is by this reasoning that you will reach the conclusion.

In essay exams, the fact pattern may be as short as one paragraph or as long as several pages; the question may include one, two, or multiple parties - at this point, these details don’t matter. Your job is always the same: address the question that is asked by giving an explanation of the law and the facts. Regardless of the form, each issue and sub-issue will be organized and analyzed individually; and you will be able to analyze each issue based on the relevant facts and law.

Below are a few points you should think about when writing an exam or practicing your exam writing skills with hypotheticals:

• Begin by identifying your issue: a construction of whether [rule of law] when [relevant facts] is often useful (i.e. The issue is whether Steve committed the tort of trespass to land when he entered the neighboring plot of land to retrieve his hat.).
• Introduce and articulate the rule: do not forget to identify the controlling body of law (i.e. Under the U.C.C. . . .), and follow a hierarchy of concepts (it is often effective to move from general to specific; make sure to include relevant legal definitions and any exceptions or exclusions, if applicable).
• As for your application (or analysis): begin by a transitional word (here, in this case, etc.) and use the word because to link your rule to the relevant fact (i.e. liability for trespass to land occurred when Steve stepped onto his neighbor's land because he fully intended to do so.).
• Offer a conclusion for each issue, and repeat your IRAC for each issue and sub-issue of the hypothetical or exam.

Professor Darrow-Kleinhaus fully walks you through a successful IRAC in her book, Mastering the Law School Exam (Thomson West 2006), which can be your guide to IRAC as it further expands on the points illustrated here.