INTRODUCTION TO IRAC

Created by Emily Klein Alice 2012

Professor Brighton College
Before you learn how to conduct legal
research, it is important to understand
how legal practitioners use legal research
and how that legal research will be
applied.

How will legal

research be
presented to
the Court?

Is there a process
for presenting
legal arguments
and law?
THE LEGAL PROFESSION USES:

1- Its own writing process; and

2- Its own citations (which will be
discussed in later lessons)

An acronym has been created for the legal writing process:

IRAC
Issue
Rule
Analysis-Application
Conclusion
There are other acronyms that are helpful in setting forth the legal
writing process that are used:

Conclusion/Issue
Rule
Analysis/application
Conclusion

Issue/Conclusion
Rule
Explanation of the precedent to compare to current facts
[case x, cited in the rule, said…]
Analysis/application
Conclusion
Is the “I” in IRAC for issue or conclusion?

RULE OF THUMB

Only put the issue 1- in writing exam answers

and put the 2-when instructed to do so by a professor or
conclusion only attorney
at the end:

Put the conclusion

and then the issue: 1-when writing a legal memorandum
(with conclusions 2- when writing other Court documents
again at the end)

When in doubt, you can state the conclusion, then state the issue
as well. “CIRAC”

Often times, advanced legal writers wind up blending the

conclusion and issue into one.
The “E” section to IREAC is considered optional, but helpful.

Content of “E”= explains the specific facts of the rule/law that was set
forth in the “R” section.
Purpose= to set forth the circumstances under which the rule/law was
made and compare those circumstances to the issue at hand. It is
helpful to distinguish your case from the case that set forth the rule of
law.

Ex:
Rule- A resident is only allowed four cats. Neighbor v. HOA, 433 State X 494 (2010).
Explanation- In Neighbor, the Court ruled that a resident that
lived in a gated community with less than forty houses was
only allowed four cats. Neighbor, 433 State X at 450.
Analysis- Here, Jane Doe has ten cats but she does not live in a
gated community and has over 100 homes within her subdivision.
Therefore, this case can be distinguished from the rule set forth in
Neighbor.
Legal writers use DEDUCTIVE REASONING to solve legal problems

Examples of deductive reasoning at the simplistic level:

Issue: Is Fido a mammal?

Major Premise: All dogs are mammals. (rule)
Minor Premise: Fido is a dog. (set of facts in dispute/analysis)
Conclusion: Fido is a mammal.

Issue: Was X’s speech protected by the First Amendment?

Major Premise: A person’s First Amendment does not protect them from
speech that incites violence.
Minor Premise: X’s speech incited violence.
Conclusion: Therefore, the First Amendment did not protect X’s speech.
IRAC was created to assist in remembering the steps of deductive
reasoning.

1) once the ISSUE has been identified, the writer should

2) state the legal RULE that is relevant to the issue and then
3) APPLY the legal rule(s) to the facts specific to the issue
4) to reach a CONCLUSION as to how the facts fit into the legal rule(s)

IF THEN

Using IRAC forces the writer to “show their work/reasoning.” In

legal writing, it is just not acceptable to give an answer. The
reader should be able to follow your analytical steps to see how
you reached your answer.
Practice tip: do not label the “IRAC”
”
sections within the document. IRAC
sections are a silent guide for the
writer to make sure all of the pieces
are included within the argument.
The transition between the sections
should be clear from the content of
the paragraph and the separation of
paragraphs.
 IRAC Process*

• Identify the legal question raised by the facts of this case

• Be aware of multiple issues or avenues
ISSUE

• Only after the legal issue(s) are defined and narrowed, should you conduct
legal research (see Lesson 1 for a detailed research process)
• Three steps: 1 - Locate the general law that governs the issue
2- Locate the law that interprets how the general law
applies
RULE 3- Update research to ensure the research has not been
changed, amended, repealed, revoked, overruled, or
modified.

• Determine how the rule of law applies to the issue.

• Does the rule contain factors? Elements?
• Apply the facts at issue to the rule of law
Analysis • Consider the possible counter-arguments.

• Summarize the legal analysis

• Be sure to give a direct conclusion
CONCLUSION

*This serves as a overview of the IRAC process. A more detailed explanation of each section will be
set forth in the Legal Writing and Analysis course.
 IRAC TIPS:
Important!

Rule: The rule should never contain facts. The rule should contain only the
law. Facts from either your client’s case or from legal precedent are
improper. FACTS FROM THE CASELAW should not be in the rule. (No names,
pronouns, factual scenarios). The rule should be extracted from the caselaw.
If you want to discuss the facts surrounding the caselaw rule, such should be
done in the E and/or A section. If facts are woven into the rule, the reader is
confused as to which section of the IRAC they are reading. The rule should
be pure and contain the law in the most generic sense.

Remember to include all of the rules in the rule section. If a rule is missing,
the general rule is wrong.

Analysis: To ensure you are not repeating the rule again, every single
sentence in the analysis should have facts woven into the sentence. It is
acceptable to discuss the rule, but make sure each sentence also have facts
woven in.
Be sure to address all of the elements/factors/part of the rule in the
analysis. You must argue each. If there are five parts to a rule, all five must
be addressed in the analysis. Also, make sure to argue on one side.

Conclusion: A one sentence statement answering the issue.

 WITHIN ONE IRAC:

Rules WITH THE Rules

Analysis WITH THE Analysis

THIS IS IMPROPER:

I-ISSUE I-ISSUE R
A Don’t be a cheerleader
R-RULE R-RULE
A-ANALYSIS R-RULE R
R-RULE A-ANALYSIS A
A-ANALYSIS R-RULE
C-CONCLUSION C-CONCLUSION
Think of each layer of IRAC as a cake layer

DON’T MIX THE FLAVORS!

ISSUE
(only one issue per
IRAC)

ALL RULES

ALL ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION
 EACH ISSUE GETS ITS OWN IRAC

DO NOT PUT MULTIPLE ISSUES IN ONE IRAC

Think of separate issues as separate cakes

ONE ISSUE=ONE IRAC

ISSUE ISSUE

RULE(S) RULE(S)

ANALYSIS ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
 Two issues/questions presented:
1-Was the defendant legally intoxicated?
2- Was the defendant operating a vehicle?

Operating a
Intoxicated ? vehicle?

RULE(S) RULE(S)

ANALYSIS ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
 What if the one issue of whether the defendant was intoxicated required an analysis of two
elements, element A and element B:

Each element would get its own IRAC IF both element A AND element B had rules specific to each of those
elements. If there are not rules that pertain specific to each element a mini-IRAC cannot be completed and,
therefore, one IRAC for the one issue is proper where each element is addressed in one analysis. Overall Hint : For
IRACs with mini-IRACs are only applicable if there are specific rules to go in the rule section for each mini- this
IRAC. If there are element specific rules, the following format should be followed: program,
you usually
OVERALL IRAC: will only
Was the defendant intoxicated? need one
IRAC, no
mini-IRACs.
ROADMAP PARAGRAPH However, if
you are
given
element
ELEMENT ELEMENT specific
A B rules for
each
RULE(S) element,
RULE(S) use the
format
ANALYSIS ANALYSIS from the
slide
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
OVERALL ANALYSIS: COMBINE CONCLUSIONS FROM BOTH ELEMENTS TO
ANALYZE IF THE DEFENDANT WAS INTOXICATED.

OVERALL CONCLUSION: YES/NO THE DEFENDANT WAS INTOXICATED

 ROADMAP PARAGRAPH
This will contain the overall rule
OVERALL IRAC:
Was the Defendant intoxicated?

ROADMAP PARAGRAPH: When you have 1 issue that has elements or sub-issues that need to be
divided into separate IRACs, you need a ROADMAP PARAGRAPH to GUIDE the reader.

Here, the overall issue is whether the defendant was intoxicated. To answer that overall issue, there
are two elements that must be addressed with their own IRACs. The two elements are IRACs within
one IRAC.
A roadmap paragraph will usually include: the Rule that sets forth both elements. For example, “To
determine whether a person is intoxicated, you must determine whether the person was: 1) Element A;
and 2) Element B.” [CITE]. Both elements will be discussed below.

ELEMENT
ELEMENT B
A
RULE(S)
RULE(S)
ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
OVERALL ANALYSIS: COMBINE CONCLUSIONS FROM BOTH ELEMENTS TO ANALYZE IF THE
DEFENDANT WAS INTOXICATED.

OVERALL CONCLUSION: YES/NO THE DEFENDANT WAS INTOXICATED

 OVERALL ANALYSIS
OVERALL IRAC:
Was the defendant intoxicated?

ROADMAP PARAGRAPH

ELEMENT ELEMENT
A B
RULE(S)
RULE(S)
ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION

OVERALL ANALYSIS: COMBINE CONCLUSIONS FROM BOTH ELEMENTS TO

ANALYZE IF THE DEFENDANT WAS INTOXICATED.
Once you have completed your IRACs for both Elements, you will start a new
paragraph. This paragraph will analyze whether the overall elements have been met.
An example here would be, “ Here, as discussed previously, defendant met Element A
and Element B and, therefore, was intoxicated.”

OVERALL CONCLUSION: YES/NO THE DEFENDANT WAS INTOXICATED

 Lets put it all together- EXAMPLE
Overall Issue: Was the defendant intoxicated?

Overall Rule/Roadmap Paragraph: A person is intoxicated if they are:

1) Element A; and 2) Element B. [cite]. Here, in order for Defendant
to be intoxicated, the Defendant will have to meet both Element A
and Element B. Both Element A and Element B will be discussed.

Issue Element A
Rule(s) Element A If Element A is not met, you
Analysis Element A DO NOT STOP. You complete
Conclusion Element A the analysis to determine if
Element B was met, regardless
if the overall test will not be
Issue Element B met because you need both
Rule(s) Element B Element A and Element B.
Analysis Element B
Conclusion Element B

Overall Analysis: Here, even though Defendant met Element B,

Defendant did not meet Element A. Therefore, the Defendant was
not intoxicated.

Overall Conclusion: The Defendant was not intoxicated.