IRAC is an acronym that generally stands for: Issue, Rule, Application, and
Conclusion. It functions as a methodology for legal analysis. The IRAC
format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in law school and bar exams.
Sections of an IRAC = Issue =
The IRAC commences with a statement of the issues or legal questions at hand.
In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the
question of law is. Each issue is often treated separately. The "Whether...when"
or "Under ... does" formats may be of service in framing the issue.
= Rule = The Rule section of an IRAC follows the
statement of the issue at hand. The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of
the rules pertinent in deciding the issue stated. Rules in a common law
jurisdiction derive from court case precedent and statute. The information
included in the rules section depends heavily on the specificity of the
question at hand. If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is
proper to include rules specific to that jurisdiction. Another distinction often
made in the rule section is a clear delineation of rules that are in
holding, and binding based on the authority of the hierarchy of the court,
being ratio decidendi, and being the majority ruling, or simply persuasive.
There are occasions when rules are adopted on the basis they are the only
clearly articulated rules on the issue, in spite of being minority decisions,
obiter dicta, and from lower courts, in other jurisdictions, which have never
been contradicted. The rules help make a correct legal
analysis of the issue at hand using the facts of the case. The rules section
needs to be a legal summary of all the rules used in the analysis and is often
written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses
information into applicable rules. = Application =
The Application section of an IRAC applies the rules developed in the rules
section to the specific facts of the issue at hand. This section uses only
the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the
rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis. It is
important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and
explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case
presented. The application/analysis section is the most important section of
an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand. It is useful to
think like a lawyer, arguing the facts of the matter from both sides while
sticking to the rules before coming to a decision.
= Conclusion = ... or simply making it a close call and
identifying whether it is decided by the tribunal of fact or is a matter of law
to be decided by the judge. The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly
answers the question presented in the issue section of the IRAC. It is
important for the methodology of the IRAC that the conclusion section of the
IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis. This section restates the
issue and provides the final answer. Conclusion is a vital process where the
final calls are distributed upon the previous cases and are redefined by the
judge. = Facts =
The facts of a case are central to every step in the IRAC. It is from the facts
that the issues are identified. It is the facts that lead to the
identification of the most appropriate rules, and the rules which lead to the
most useful way of construing the facts. Analysis requires the interpretation of
facts and rules. The conclusion is a decision based on the application of the
rules to the facts for each issue. Criticism
IRAC has many proponents and opponents. The main arguments of the proponents of
the IRAC methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a
formula that helps organize the legal analysis. Since an organized legal
analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning, therefore, the
proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool. The opponents of the IRAC
fall into two categories. The first category are those who object
to using an IRAC because of its strict and unwieldy format. Most of these
critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC such as MIRAT, IDAR, CREAC,
TREACC, CRuPAC, ISAAC and ILAC. Each new iteration is supposed to cure the
defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format.
A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is
said to offer more clarity and congruity. They argue this based upon
the repetition of the conclusion in the beginning and the end which is said to
leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall
reasoning. It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate
rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further
clarity. The second category of critics of the
IRAC say that it tends to lead to overwriting, and oversimplifying the
complexity of proper legal analysis. This group believes that a good legal
analysis consists of a thoughtful, careful, well researched essay that is
written in a format most amiable to the writer. The importance of an open format
amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on
expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating
on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus.
An example IRAC A generic IRAC on a law school exam
would consist of an answer to a question. The following example
demonstrates a generic IRAC as an answer to a question.
Person "A" walks into a grocery store and picks up a loaf of bread. He then
stuffs the bread beneath his jacket. A security attendant sees him and follows
him to the cash register. Person A passes through without stopping to pay
for anything. The security attendant stops him at the gate. He detains person
A while he interrogates him. Person A is unresponsive and uncooperative and in
fact downright hostile to the charges being leveled at him by the security
attendant. Person A is held for a period of two hours at the end of which it is
found that he had actually put the loaf of bread back and was not stealing.
Person A sues the grocery store for false imprisonment. Would person A
prevail in court? Variations
HIRAC FIRAC
MIRAT. IDAR.
AFGAN CRAAC, Application, Conclusion. This is
mostly used for writing assignments. CREAC
TREACC TRIAccC
TREAT TRRAC
CRuPAC ILAC
KUWAIT CIRAC
IPAAC IRREAC
CLEO IRACDD.
CI/REXAC, Explanation, Application, Conclusion)
BaRAC References
External links Legal Reasoning and HIRAC: Australian
National University College of Law Explanation of IRAC
In Defense of IRAC - a rejoinder to "Why IRAC sucks"
Dondal J. Kochan, "Thinking" in a Deweyan Perspective: The Law School Exam
as a Case Study for Thinking in Lawyering, 12 Nev. L.J. 395.