- May 25, 2023
- 18 min read

IRAC Analysis Notes

This compilation represents a summary of my personal notes on IRAC Analysis, drawn from various sources.

A. General

1. IRAC stands for Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion

– Used in the US, the UK and beyond

– Designed primarily for problem questions

2. Should I use IRAC?

• Yes, the most straightforward way is by breaking down an issue into parts:

• But don’t be dogmatic!

• Every answer to a legal problem must contain these elements, but you can mix them

around.

3. Provisos

– What IRAC will do

o Help you organize your thoughts

o Help you remember the legal points that you want to/need to make

o Help you convey information quickly, logically, ‘lawyerly’

o Help you overcome writing blocks

o Help you keep within page limit/time limit

– What IRAC will not do Help you if you don’t know the content

4. IRAC as a litigation model

– Law school is based on the litigation model, as are exam questions

– Law and IRAC are built on two principles

o Rule of law

o Presentation as if to a judge ( ie, all elements of a cause of action)

5. IRAC and the Rule of Law

– Nulla poena sine lege

o Law must exist prior to the taking place of the act

o Law must be sufficiently well known to provide notice

– Based on statutory law, case law, and possibly commentary

o You must identify this standard for the judge/examiner

– Not based on

o Common sense

o Logic

o Law according to your opinion Law according to my opinion

6. Judicial presentation style (elements of a cause of action)

– Arguments in court

o ‘I wish to prove the tort of negligence

o NOT ‘I wish to prove causation’ (without more)

– Should consider / possibly list (more on that later) all aspects of the cause of action

Will not discuss all elements in detail

B. Sections

1. ISSUE

An “issue” is often equivalent to a cause of action; sub-issues typically relate to the elements needed to prove the cause of action
Find all issues, including sub-issues, for all parties appearing in the fact pattern; do not introduce hypothetical parties or new facts
Limit issues to those relevant to the paper for which you are writing; do not introduce contract issues into a tort paper, for example, unless you are instructed to do so
Limit discussion of sub-issues to those that are truly in contention – do not spend a lot of time proving something that no one can really dispute

I- Issue (planning)

Identify the cause of action, list all elements in your notes
Identify (sub)issue most in contention
Handle multiple issues separately
Handle multiple parties separately
Handle multiple claims separately

I- Issue (drafting)

– One to two sentences long formulaic

– For open questions

Patsy the plaintiff wishes to bring a claim of negligence against Joe the Janitor and Al the Altruist. Negligence requires duty, breach of duty, factual causation, legal causation, and damages [cite]. The issue most in contention is legal causation.’

– For narrowly prompted questions

Patsy the plaintiff must establish legal causation in negligence against Joe the Janitor and Al the Altruist [cite].’

– Handle multiple issues, parties, and claims separately

‘I will begin by handling legal causation in the claim against Joe, followed by claims against Al

2. RULE

The “rule” is the legal principle or standard that defines or relates to the issue or sub-issue; rules are made up of cases, statutes, and (to a lesser extent) legal commentary (excluding student texts)
Cite the rule applicable to the issue/sub-issue in full (for example, give all elements of a claim arising in assault)
Identify the exceptions to the rule (which you should then say do not apply if they do not); however, do not list long chains of exceptions if they are not relevant
Identify relevant defenses to the rule
Introduce case citations/names whenever possible (even if you can only say “the snail in the bottle case”)

R - Rule (planning)

– List all possible authorities

o Be as broad as possible you will eliminate some later

o Include ‘negative’ as well as ‘positive’ authorities

o Relevance is vital to consider in light of facts and legal issues

§ Remember the concept of e=mc 2 in physics v biology

o Remember the need for support (nulla poena sine lege)

– Be prepared to harmonize and distinguish cases

– Can list policy rationales as well, BUT

o Policy is always a secondary source

o You must be explicit about WHICH public policy

o You must introduce contrary policies

– Once you have your broad list of authorities, you need to call them down

– Focus on only those authorities that are most relevant to your argument

– Do consider defenses as well as affirmative matters

– When you are analyzing (and, later, writing), use the inverted triangle approach to

prioritize your best authorities and arguments in the time/space you have available

R - Rule (drafting)

– This is the bulk of your essay

o This is law school, not fact school

– Must have multiple authorities

o Even if you forget a key case, you can construct a good argument

o Lots of ways to drive from LA to NY

– Argue both sides of the issue unless instructed otherwise

– Show your work

o A + B = C

o B = D

o Therefore, A + D = C

– Seek to establish a single legal standard that you can apply to your facts

3. APPLICATION

This is the most important point
In fact, this step often skipped
Evaluate the application of the general rule to the facts of your case
Identify which elements are not in question by virtue of existing facts and which elements are in dispute
Apply any exceptions to the facts of your case
Apply any defenses to the facts of your case

A - Application (planning)

Identify relevant facts
You will have done this when reading the question, but now you’re confirming you have all of them
Discard irrelevant/non-material facts
Do NOT worry about other facts you think you’re missing
Your instructor will have included everything he/she/they think is important
Consider how your facts apply to the law (or the law applies to the facts)
This is why you considered law in a vacuum before identifying the relevant legal standard that will control your dispute

A - Application (drafting)

– Here is where facts finally come in

o DO NOT SIMPLY REPEAT FACTS FROM QUESTION here you are ‘applying’ facts to

law (or law to

o Your reader will be patient so long as the authorities and discussion in the R section

were relevant to the facts you will discuss in the A section

– Correlate facts to legal authorities and standards described previously

o Most important word: because

– This section should be shorter than your ‘r’ section

– If you remember an authority now or it’s only a passing reference, you can introduce it

here, but try to keep the ‘R’ and ‘A’ sections distinct

– Again, remember to show your work (A + B, etc)

– Consider pros and cons explicitly

4. CONCLUSION

Can be a one-liner, but it is important – what is the outcome in this particular case (who wins and what do they win)
In conclusion, you will have to weigh the merits of the claim versus the merits of the defenses applicable to that particular claim – very seldom will you have an absolutely one-sided action (in an exam or in real life)
It is less important that you get the “right” conclusion (there is very seldom a “right” answer) than that you go through all four analytical steps
For the most part, you should do each IRAC analysis separately – do not do all issues at once, all rules at once, etc.; however, if part of the analysis is similar to one that you have addressed before, you can incorporate it by reference (but say explicitly what you are referencing and incorporating)
You may combine IRAC analyses if two parties have an identical claim (for example, two passengers in the same car in a car accident may have identical claims, although there may be different defenses to their claims – you can combine their claims as long as you treat the defenses separately) – however, seldom in an exam will two people be situated in exactly the same manner

C - Conclusion (planning)

– Identify your likely conclusion

– This may change as you write, but you should know where you’re going at this point

C - Conclusion (drafting)

– One sentence, formulaic

o ‘For the aforementioned reasons, the [party] should prevail

o Same kind of sentence as in litigation

– Must come to some outcome, just like a judge

– Seldom do you need more facts

– Seldom is the law so evenly weighed that you can’t come to some conclusion

C. Review

§ Proofread for grammatical errors/spelling mistakes
§ Check that references comply with the AGLC (if required)
§ Check word count
§ Check overall presentation (Use appropriate spacing/paragraphs, and Use appropriate fonts of an appropriate size)

Remember

– We are testing judgment as well as recall/understanding

o What you leave out is as important as what you put in

– There are lots of ways to do well and argue the question

– Strong format and writing is not enough to get you a high mark; however, a lack of

structure and unclear writing can confuse your reader and thereby reduce your mark

o You don’t need flowery prose just aim to be clear and concise

– Simply dropping in cases or dropping in ‘buzz words’ will not be enough

o Say WHY you are presenting an authority or argument

o Use terms of art, but define them to show you know what they mean

o Use an objective tone that balances the competing issues appropriately

D. Common errors

– Repeating facts without applying them (Facts are evidence, not a story – do not retell

them, just use them as needed)

– Thinking that showing only the arguments/authorities in your favor is helpful

– Thinking you have to ‘win’ for your perceived client

– Misreading

o The facts of the question

o The call of the question

– Exceeding time limits per question

– Presenting a pre-prepared treatise on the law

– Answering the question you wanted to be asked, not the one that was asked

– Thinking the outcome is the most important factor or that it can be described in a few

sentences

E. Style

1. In general

Most of you probably think you write rather well. Most of you probably do or else you wouldn’t be here. However, legal writing presents particular challenges to new students.

A few general writing tips in no particular order:

Hedge your bets only when necessary – try to limit the use of “it seems” or “it would appear” – believe in your opinion! Using these phrases only waters down the impact of your writing and doesn’t change the conclusions you have reached. Sometimes it will be necessary to use such terms, but more seldom than you initially think
Avoid the phrase “I think” “I believe” or “it seems to me” – obviously these are your opinions since you’re writing the paper. Of course, be sure to differentiate your opinions from actual case law, statutory language, scholarly commentary, etc.
Simple language and sentences are better than long, complex ones – don’t use a ten-cent word when a five-cent word will do just as well
Utilize white space in your essays
If you change a topic, change your paragraph!
If you’re having a problem saying something, it may be because you’re trying to “write” it rather than communicate it. Stop and figure out how you would explain it to a friend sitting across from you in a coffee shop, then write that down
Avoid colloquialisms and slang – this is probably the only real difference between a well-written style and a spoken style

2. Writing like a lawyer

Use terms of art where appropriate, but don’t throw them in gratuitously (or incorrectly!)
Cite cases, statutes, and articles as much as possible – this isn’t just a ploy to get good marks, it is the essence of legal argument. Your opinion is not controlling in any jurisdiction – precedent, and legislation are the only things that matter
Writing like a lawyer does not mean trying to sound high-flown and obtuse – just say what you think
Wordiness is not lawyerly (“one would expect plaintiff’s case to prevail at law, all things considered,” should be “plaintiff should prevail”) – it also slows you down
Generally, avoid “would” as wooden
Excessive (and/or incorrect!) use of Latin is not lawyerly
The passive tense is not lawyerly – use it only when absolutely necessary

F. EXAMPLE

a. Example 1

On 15 August, Ken offered to sell his car to Henry for $15,000. After inspecting the car, Henry said: ‘The car is in excellent condition and I am very interested. I would be happy to buy it if I could pay in three installments over the next three months.’ Nothing more was said that day.

On 18 August, Henry sent a text message to Ken accepting Ken’s original offer.

Advise Henry whether he has any contractual right to the car in these circumstances.

(What legal issues does this raise, and how do you address them?)

What’s the issue?
Was Henry making a counter-offer or was this a request for information?

What’s the relevant law?
A request for information – when there is a contractual offer, a response to this offer could be acceptance, rejection (a counter-offer is a rejection), or a request for information? (Stevenson Jacques & Co v McLean (1880) 5 QBD 346).

Analysis
Here, the asking of whether the money can be paid on instalments would alter the original offer, because the money would be received over a longer period of time. As the cases on consideration show (Pinnel’s Case) payment over a period of time changes the nature of consideration.

Conclusion
Therefore, Henry is not free to accept the original offer, as his counter-offer has rejected it.

b. Example 2

Allan works in Barry’s restaurant as a chef. One day, while Allan is cooking, Barry yells at him, which puts Allan in a bad mood. As a result of his bad mood, Allan makes several mistakes and, as a result, a number of customers eating at Barry’s restaurant suffer from food poisoning. Who is liable to them in a civil legal action for the food poisoning, Barry or Allan? Explain your answer.

How Should I Write My Answers?

The answer is to write them simply.
Often students think that a good answer is the one that is the longest or sounds the most impressive.
This is wrong; especially when you’re using words that you do not fully understand but that you think sound good.
Keep your answers simple and straightforward.

Issue: 
Is Barry vicariously liable for Allan’s conduct?

Rule: 
an employer will be liable for the actions for employees, provided those actions took place within the scope of the employee’s job (Deatons Pty Ltd v Flew (1949) 79 CLR 370).

Analysis: 
Here, Allan’s conduct appears to be negligent. Allan was still doing what he was employed to do. He was not acting outside the scope of his employment.

Conclusion: 
It is strongly arguable, Barry is vicariously liable.

c. Example 3

As part of its latest “Get Fit” campaign, the State Government’s Health Department is trying to encourage people who work in the Sydney CBD to walk to work each day. Colorful posters have appeared on bus shelters in Elizabeth Street that include the following words: ‘Walk to work for a week. Not only will you feel better but you will receive $100 cash from the State Health Department.’

Andrew usually walks from his home in Newtown to his work near Central Station every day. He has not seen the posters on the bus shelters.

Advise Andrew whether he has any contractual right to claim the $100 in these circumstances.

Issue: The issue is whether Andrew has accepted and performed the contract.

Rule(s): a person cannot accept a contractual offer unless the person knows about it (R v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227); a unilateral contract can only be accepted by performing the promise (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256).

Analysis: Here, the offer by the government represents a unilateral contract that a person may accept by walking to work. Andrew has done what is necessary to accept this offer, but since he did not know of it at the time, he did not have the intention to do so.

Conclusion:Therefore, Andrew has not validly accepted the contract.

d. Example 4

David owed Carl $25,000 and was late in paying this debt.

David offered to pay Carl $15,000 immediately but only if Carl accepted the $15,000 in discharge of the entire debt.

Carl protested but reluctantly accepted David’s cheque for $15,000 and handed David a piece of paper with writing on it that stated: “$15,000 accepted in discharge of David's debt and in settlement of David's account with Carl.”

Advise David.

Issue: Has David given good consideration to settle the debt?

Rule: an agreement to pay part of a debt in exchange for settling the whole debt will not be good consideration (Pinnel’s Case (1602) 77 ER 237). 

Analysis: Given David is paying back part of the debt late, he has not given anything extra or new to support Carl’s promise.

Conclusion:Therefore, David remains liable to pay back the rest of the debt.

e. Example 5

Several juvenile delinquents escaped from an open youth custody center. There had been many previous escapes and residents in the area had often complained to the authorities, who did nothing to tighten security. The escaping boys entered a nearby home of Decker and stole food, clothing, and some jewelry. For their own amusement, they smashed up the house and started a fire which caused extensive damage. One of the boys managed to travel 200 miles to find Snout, who had given evidence leading to the boy’s youth custody sentence, and when he found him he severely assaulted him. Another boy, who had several previous convictions for theft, carried out a series of daring cat burglaries in various parts of the country before being recaptured.

Do (a) Decker, (b) Snout, (c) any of the victims who have the cat burglaries have a cause of action against the Home Office (which is responsible for the supervision of youth custody centers)? Would it make any difference to your answer if the youth custody center’s officers had not locked up the center’s boys on the night they escaped pursuant to Home Office instructions that it was in the interests of the boys that they should be placed on trust day and night?

Following is a sample answer based on the IRAC system. It is only a model – there may well be other quotes or other cases that apply – so don’t consider this to be the one right answer.

It also is a bit on the long side, given that it is only part of a bigger question. I just wanted to show you how to apply the IRAC system to the fact pattern given.

TIP: Break the answer up into (a), (b), and (c) – follow the question format in that respect. If the question does not give you sub-questions to answer, break the fact pattern up yourself, most likely by potential plaintiffs.

BE SURE to read the question, however, as you don’t want to waste time answering a question that isn’t asked! Also remember that this is a duty of care question – other questions may have one or more different controversies for you to address. Don’t think you always have to treat duty of care in this much detail!

ANSWER:

The issue is whether Decker can pursue a claim in negligence against the Home Office for the losses he suffered when the boys in question escaped from the youth custody center. 

To prove negligence, a plaintiff must establish: a duty of care by the defendant to the plaintiff; breach of that duty; factual causation (“but for” causation); legal causation; and damages. Defenses such as contributory negligence may be raised in some cases. The plaintiff has the burden of proof, and must prove his/her case beyond the balance of probabilities.

In this fact pattern, the major question arises concerning duty of care. Many courts litigate duty of care as a preliminary matter, since, if a duty is not found as a legal matter, there is no need to litigate the other elements of negligence, which are factual in nature. 

Therefore, we will address duty of care in this question first. A duty of care is owed by a defendant to a particular plaintiff – there is no “general duty” of care owed to the world. In the current situation, we are investigating whether the Home Office owed a duty of care to Decker, a person living near the youth center. Dorset Yacht is the case most on point. 

There, the House of Lords ruled that the Home Office, which was operating a borstal, owed a duty of care to a nearby yacht owner whose boat was damaged by boys who escaped from the borstal. Even though the boys’ actions might have been considered independent causes of injury, Lord Reid noted that “although one of the connecting links [to harm] is deliberate human action, the law has no difficulty in holding that the defendants’ conduct caused the plaintiffs’ loss.”

In Dorset Yacht, the Home Office was liable because the officers of the borstal had a duty to keep the boys from escaping but were negligent in their duty to do so. The Home Office might have had discretion in how it ran the borstals (which would protect it, normally, from civil liability), but in that case it did so so unreasonably as to be “no real exercise of discretion which Parliament had conferred;” therefore the Home Office was acting outside of its area of statutory discretion. This is distinct from East Suffolk and Stovin, where public bodies were held to be not liable for their actions because they were acting within the area of discretion. East Suffolk might have found that a particular plaintiff was foreseeably harmed by the public body’s lack of action (certainly Lord Atkin thought so in his dissent in that case), but the majority found otherwise.

One reason why the yacht owner in Dorset Yacht was able to recover was because there was reasonable foreseeability that his chattels would be damaged; Lord Pearson noted that there was no general duty to all persons for harm caused by escaped juvenile delinquents. It was the physical proximity of the plaintiff in Dorset Yacht, combined with the fact that the boys had escaped before and were known to be likely to steal transportation, that helped the House of Lords hold that a duty could exist.

The facts of the current hypothetical are very close to those in Dorset Yacht. The boys were known to be willing and able to escape, Decker lived close by, and the officers of the custody center did nothing to tighten security. Although doing nothing is similar to the delay/lack of action in East Suffolk and Stovin, the similarities of the current facts with Dorset suggest that the Home Office will be held to have a duty of care.

The defendants in our fact pattern might try to rely on Smith as part of their defense. In Smith, vandals broke into an empty cinema and started a fire that affected the building next door. The owner of the cinema was held to have no duty to his neighbors. Although Smith was not a case concerning a public body, it does demonstrate that there are situations where defendants will not be held liable for the actions of others. However, there was no prior relationship between the vandals and the owners of the cinema in Smith, nor was there any knowledge on the part of the owners that vandals might cause harm to the plaintiff’s property. Because our hypothetical includes a prior relationship and prior knowledge of the predilections of the boys, Smith can easily be distinguished and should not be considered persuasive.

Because a duty of care exists, further investigation is necessary [NOTE: if no duty of care existed, you could stop here and say “because no duty of care exists, there is no need to address the other four elements of negligence, as plaintiff’s claim cannot prevail.”]. The standard of care here is that of the reasonable custody centre. Obviously, as there had been previous escapes and the officers “did nothing to tighten security,” something any reasonable custody centre would do, there is a breach of the duty of care. 

There is “but for” (or factual causation), since the harm to Decker follows directly from the boys’ action. There is also legal causation, either under the Wagon Mound test of reasonable foreseeability or under the (now largely outmoded) directness test of Re Polemis. 

Finally, damages are evidently present, as Decker has suffered loss in the form of food, clothing, jewellry, and damage to his home. No defences appear to exist (common defences include contributory negligence, volenti, illegality, etc.), so Decker should be able to recover all of these property damages from the Home Office.

*The issue in the second part of the hypothetical is whether Snout has a cause of action in negligence against the Home Office. The five elements of negligence are the same as noted above, as is the standard and burden of proof. As was the case with the preceding question, the major controversy will be over whether there is a duty of care. This issue will be addressed preliminarily, as a court would do in real-life litigation. [NOTE: here you would go on here with the analysis of duty of care]

NOTE:

You might have a slightly more in-depth discussion of legal causation, linking it to the duty/chain of causation element. However, this is just something to show you how to structure your argument.

f. Example 6

The accused stabbed the deceased and then left her on the beach. The tide came in and she drowned. Could the accused be convicted of murder?

Answer 1: Like in Hallet, the deceased died after the tide came in. Therefore, the accused in this case could be convicted of murder.

Feedback

Student failed to identify the rule (i.e. definition of murder from s18 CA / relevant case law).
No application of law to facts. No mention of facts in the PQ case.
The student failed to identify the issue.
The conclusion could be improved. ‘Therefore the actus reus for murder is made out. The next step is to ask if the men rea is also established … (mental element is the next issue).

Answer 2: 
Murder is defined in s18 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). For the actus reus, the prosecution must prove BRD that the accused person’s act or omission caused the relevant death. (i)
According to Hallet, the incoming tide does not break the chain of causation. (ii)
Therefore, the accused can be convicted of murder in the case at hand. (iii)