Law School Essays: What the heck is IRAC???

by PASS Professor Sara J. Berman-Barrett

By the time you get to writing law school essays, you may think "IRAC" stands for "I Really Am Crazy". You may wonder why you even decided upon law school. But when you get into it, you will find that writing legal exams is really a fairly straightforward exercise. The key is to learn the skills and then practice, practice, practice.

So what is IRAC? A logical template for legal analysis, "IRAC" is an acronym for Issue, Rule, Analysis (or Argument or Application), and Conclusion.

Using criminal law as our backdrop, a subject most law students take in their first year of law school, let's take a closer look at IRAC in context, and show you how you too can effectively IRAC and PASS your law school exams.

Criminal law courses usually focus on the substantive elements of crimes and defenses. Criminal law essay questions may be framed to occur at any stage of the process. For example, the "call of the question" (the interrogatory at then end of the exam question which defines the task or tasks) may read:

• "With what crime or crimes, if any, may be the defendant be charged,"

• "Of what crime or crimes may the defendant be found guilty," or

• "Did the court err in convicting the defendant of any crime or crimes?"

For each of these queries, your analytical approaches will be the same. Most criminal law essay questions are of the "issue spotting" variety—meaning one or more defendants will have done a series of actions, which arguably amount to criminal offenses. Many facts are present from which students can demonstrate the proof or lack thereof of the requisite conduct, mental state and causation elements of those crimes, and/or argue that one or more defenses do or do not apply. It is critical to keep in mind that the government or prosecution bears the burden of proving every element of the substantive icrimes (or offense) beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant only has to prove certain element of certain defenses (such as insanity, entrapment or self-defense) if the defendant wishes to assert them.

As with all law exams, the most important skill to successful answering a criminal law question is careful reading. Start with the "call of the question" (often the end of the fact pattern), so that you know what the question asks of you, and so that you answer only the questions asked of you. (Note though, even if the call does not mention "defenses" they may be applicable to your discussion in that if facts exist that would prove a valid defense it may not be appropriate for the defendant in question to be charged with or convicted of that offense.) Pay particular attention to which defendant or defendant's potential guilt (and as to which crime or crimes) the question asks you to address.

As you read and take notes on the facts, you will begin to employ that skill we call, "issue spotting." What is issue spotting? Issue spotting is raising questions, identifying those areas where the facts lead to and arguably satisfy (or fail to satisfy) the elements of crimes and defenses. The more facts that are present which make it arguable that a certain element is or is not met, the more time you typically need to devote to analyzing that "issue" in your answer.

Note that you must make mention of every element of every applicable crime or defense, even if it is not in question. For example, one of the elements of burglary is "breaking" into the structure. Even where a fact pattern explicitly stated that the defendant "broke the door to go inside," you would want to say something brief such as, "The breaking element is satisfied because the defendant 'broke the door' to go inside." While that may seem self-evident, points are often given on law school exams for stating the obvious in a clear and organized fashion.

After you read, take notes and think, you will want to outline—meaning to organize the main discussable issues (elements of crimes and/or defenses that you have identified or spotted). The checklists and other details you will find on the most commonly tested crimes and defenses, throughout this outline, will help you learn a logical order in which to organize the elements.

Back to IRAC. So the I or issue is about identifying the questions (or "issues") the fact pattern raises. Any one or sometimes all the elements of each possible offense or defense may be at issue. How do you find "issues?" Some will jump out at you, even on the first read. (Circle or note them in the margins, if they do, so you don't forget those when you have moved onto other issues.) Other issues, you will need to uncover, perhaps by asking yourself why each fact is present and then testing that fact against the rules (that you know from memory) to see if that fact raises some question.

For example, let's look at the following sentences which you could conceivably come across in a criminal law question: "The Defendant entered the Miller office building to get the umbrella that he had left, then saw the diamond ring, and took it. He then walked out into the rain." Why are certain facts used? Why? Well, whether or not the "office building" satisfies the "dwelling" element of burglary might raise one issue. The Defendant's going inside in order "to get the umbrella" might raise another—whether Def had the requisite mens rea, or "intent to commit a felony therein". Read every word. Even the tiny word "then" raises an issue—here, the question about when the felonious intent was formed, timing being critical to culpability. So look back at that same sentence, this time with those issue highlighted. "The Defendant entered the Miller office building to get the umbrella that he had left, then saw the diamond ring, and took it. He then walked out into the rain." That's Issue spotting, the I in IRAC.

Next comes R, the rule(s). In addition to stating applicable R, rule or rules, after raising an issue, law students may get credit for mentioning the policy or rationale behind those rules (if your professor has emphasized policy in class, you will know that it's important to her or him.) That said, most law professors and bar graders typically do not want to see treatises on all the criminal law you know. Rather, they want to read succinct, clear rule statements of those precise rules of law that govern the issue or issue you previously stated.

The A, which comes after stating the rule, the "application," "analysis," or "argument(s)" is often the most important part of exam writing. It can also be one of the most fun parts, when you know what you're doing. Really, this is your chance to argue! Your opportunity to show that you are thinking, to say why the facts either meet or don't meet the elements of the rules you stated. Sometimes, often, there are good arguments to be made on both sides. Certain facts may point to the satisfaction of a particular element, while other facts indicate that element is not met. This is good! If the issues are too clear, they likely will not be on an exam. (Remember, law professors stay up nights dreaming up hypos that fall right on the line in that fuzzy gray just to give you that special opportunity to argue!)

Last, C, or conclusion, the wrap up, where students resolve the issues or questions they raised earlier. Note that, especially if the facts are gray, meaning there are good arguments on either side in Step A, the conclusion may be the least critical of the four IRAC steps. Rather, a well written answer will develop the most logical argument or arguments, and credit will be given for thoughtfulness and organization rather than for coming to one or another specific conclusion. Note too that your "answer" may not even be a certain one—for example you may conclude, "The defendant will 'likely' be found to have possessed the intent to kill Vickie, however, if the prosecution is unable to prove that, as analyzed above, they may well be able to demonstrate either the intent to cause serious bodily harm or a reckless indifference to human life—either one of which would satisfy the mens rea element of murder.

You will often have both a brief conclusion for each issue that you IRAC, as well as a final conclusion at the end of the exam which answers the call of the question. (For example, "Based on the foregoing analysis and discussion, Defendant Dan will likely be guilty of both the murder of Vickie and the burglary Vickie and Tom's house."). On bar examination questions in particular, such summary conclusion, even if only one sentence, is important in that it signals the grader that the applicant has completed the question.

So, there you have it: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion. (And, perhaps also, Yes, I really am crazy!)