ORGANIZING A LEGAL DISCUSSION (IRAC, CRAC, ETC.) Intrductin The rganizatin f yur writing will determine whether r nt a reader will understand and be persuaded by yur argument. Brilliant rhetric will nly carry yu s far if yur piece des nt fllw a clear structure, many f yur pints will be lst r misunderstd. As a result, it is crucial that yur writing fllw a clear rganizatinal frmat that will be intelligible t yur reader. Mst legal writing requires the writer t analyze a set f facts using legal rules gleaned frm a myriad f surces, including cases, statutes, and secndary materials. Unlike the nn-legal writing yu ve dne in cllege and at wrk, legal writing has its wn specific structure that lawyers everywhere use in ne frm r anther and which they expect t see in yur written wrk. Whether they call it IRAC (Issue, Rule, Applicatin, Cnclusin), CRAC (Cnclusin, Rule, Applicatin, Cnclusin), r CREAC (Cnclusin, Rule, Explanatin, Applicatin, Cnclusin), all lawyers write in the same way: by laying ut the issue t be discussed, the legal rule relevant t the issue, the analysis f the pertinent facts based n that rule, and the verall cnclusin reached. Althugh this may sund daunting at first, it will quickly becme secnd nature. Belw is a primer n hw t structure a legal argument using IRAC. CRAC and CREAC are incredibly similar t IRAC, and the same principles apply. Where d I use IRAC? IRAC is used after yur facts sectin, in the discussin sectin r yur mem, r the argument sectin f yur brief. Each discrete legal tpic will have its wn IRAC structure, under a separate sub-heading. Fr example, an affirmative defense and a necessary element f a claim wuld each receive their wn cmplete, independent IRAC discussins. Hw d I use IRAC?
With practice, it will feel entirely natural t rganize yur legal discussin fllwing the IRAC frm. In the meantime, belw is a basic utline f the IRAC frmat and its best uses. Issue State the issue in the first paragraph at the beginning f the sub-sectin: what is the legal questin yu will need t analyze? Why d yu need t analyze this issue? This first sectin shuld give yur reader an understanding f what yu intend t discuss and why yu must discuss it. In a mem, yu shuld be neutral in yur statement f the facts while als predicting hw the judge will rule n the issue. Best: state the relevant issue in a way that reveals yur cnclusin Example: The Curt will likely rule that Officer used uncnstitutinally excessive frce under the Graham test as applied t the facts f this case. Gd: state the relevant issue in a neutral fashin. Example: The judge must then decide whether the balancing test in Graham warrants a finding f excessive frce. Nt Gd: state the relevant issue as a questin Example: Did the Officer use excessive frce under the Graham test? Nte that using the questin frmat is stylistically disfavred in the legal prfessin. In a brief, yu shuld be mre pininated and assert hw yur client wuld like the issue t be reslved. Best: assert that the relevant issue shuld cme ut in yur client s favr and (briefly) explain why Example: The balancing test in Graham warrants a finding f excessive frce because Officer respnded t an unthreatening suspect with a serius intrusin int his Furth Amendment rights. Gd: assert that the relevant issue shuld cme ut in yur client s favr Example: The curt shuld find that the fficer used excessive frce under the balancing test in Graham. Nt Gd: state the relevant issue in a neutral fashin Example: The curt will need t emply the balancing test in Graham t decide whether the fficer used excessive frce. 2
Rule/Explanatin After yu lay ut the issue, yu will need t establish the gverning legal rule that the curt will emply t reslve that issue. Yur rule sectin shuld resemble a funnel: set ut the bradest principles first, with the smaller, secndary cmpnents, r exceptins t the rule fllwing afterwards. Generally, yu will be able t naturally create a funnel by discussing authrities in rder frm mst imprtant t least imprtant. State hldings f cases briefly, and nly include relevant facts and cnclusins. Depending n the nature f yur case, yu may als wish t include a paragraph discussing particularly relevant precedent in rder t establish hw the rule wrks in practice. Order f Authrities: Cnstitutin, statutes, regulatins, Supreme Curt cases, appellate curt cases, trial curt cases, and lastly, secndary surces. General specific Baseline rule exceptins Tip: Fr cncise use f legal surces, use ellipses (Bluebk R. 5.3), and minimize use f blck qutatins Explain the whle rule; dn t just give a ne-liner Example: It is well established that the use f frce is cntrary t the Furth Amendment if it is excessive under bjective standards f reasnableness. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 02, 121 S. Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (citing Graham v. Cnnr, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989)). The reasnableness f the applicatin f frce applied by a plice fficer depends n a balancing f the frce applied and the circumstances cnfrnted by the fficer. A claim that excessive frce was used in the curse f a seizure is subject t an bjective test f reasnableness under the ttality f the circumstances f each case, including the severity f the crime at issue, whether the suspect psed an immediate threat t the safety f thers, and whether he is actively resisting arrest. Sullivan v. Gagnier, 225 F.3d 161, 165 (2d Cir. 2000) (citing Graham v. Cnnr, 490 U.S. at 395 396). Under the law, plice are nt permitted t use any degree f frce in all instances in sme circumstances, n use f frce is reasnable because nne is required. Bauer v. Nrris, 713 F.2d 408, 412 (2d Cir. 1983) ( the use f any frce by fficers simply because a suspect is argumentative, cntentius, r vituperative is nt t be cndned ) (internal qutatins mitted). The Secnd Circuit has held that the degree f injury is nt determinative f an excessive frce claim; even an injury that is nt permanent r severe can suffice. Rbinsn v. Via, 821 F.2d 913, 924 (2d Cir. 1987). Example: When applying the balancing test in Graham, the curt has held that the there is little gvernmental interest in arresting a suspect fr a minr ffense. See Jnes v. Parmley, 465 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2006) (jury culd reasnably find that kicking and punching peaceful prtesters in vilatin f lcal rdinance was excessive); Thmas v. Rach, 165 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 1999) (verbal threats are a t minr a crime t create a strng gvernmental interest in the arrest). Therefre, a suspect s alleged crime must be sufficiently serius t warrant use f painful frce, such as a taser, under a
Graham analysis. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11. Given that the threat psed by the suspect is the mst imprtant single element f the Graham analysis, Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432, 1441 (9th Cir. 1994), any arrest in which the suspect pses n threat and is nly wanted fr a minr infractin likely des nt give rise t a significant gvernmental interest. Applicatin In this sectin, yu will apply the rule t yur facts, using the cases yu ve discussed in the rule sectin t draw analgies r distinctins. Yu shuld track the rder and key phrases f the Rule sectin s that yur reader can easily fllw alng. Dn t be afraid t repeat key terms and phrases yu will frequently need t d s t shw that yur case fllws precedent. This sectin will be the bulk f yur argument, and may run several paragraphs r pages lng. Example: In the instant matter, the fficer s use f frce against Victim was bjectively unreasnable because Victim cmmitted nly a minr ffense and psed n threat t Officer. Officer arrested Victim fr litering under New Yrk Penal Law 240.35, which classifies the infractin as a vilatin a lwer grade than even a misdemeanr. This infractin is even less serius than the ne at issue Thmas (verbal threats) and is equivalent t the minr nes in Jnes (prtest vilatin). Mrever, Victim psed s little threat t Officer that sanctining taser use in this situatin wuld run cntrary t precedent and ntins f justice. Victim did nt apprach Officer r manifest any intentin t harm him. Much like in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. at 21, where substantial frce was unreasnable because the fleeing suspect psed n threat t the fficer, Victim was actually attempting t escape away frm Officer. Cnclusin Here, all yu will need is a sentence r tw that cncisely state the utcme f the issue, based n the Applicatin f the Rule t the facts f the case. Example: Therefre, because Victim psed n threat t Officer and was nly liable fr a minr infractin, Officer s use f frce was excessive under Graham. 4
Putting it all tgether Fully synthesized, IRAC will allw yu t mve frm the main prblems in a case thrugh the gverning law, and t a final cnclusin. Cnsider ne final example. Yur client is getting divrced in Cnnecticut. Her husband argues that she did nt fairly and reasnably disclse her prperty, which Cnnecticut law requires, because her disclsure inaccurately stated her verall assets. In a mem, yu might analyze this pint like this: ISSUE, r Tpic Sentence: A curt will nt be cnvinced that my client s financial disclsures are incmplete. RULE: A fair and reasnable disclsure refers t the nature, extent and accuracy f the infrmatin t be disclsed. Friez v. Friez, 914 A.2d 533, 545 (Cnn. 2007). Friez ntes that a fair and reasnable financial disclsure requires each cntracting party t prvide the ther with a general apprximatin f their incme, assets and liabilities. 914 A.2d at 550. ANALYSIS: Interpret the Evidence In Friez, the defendant prvided an accurate representatin, in writing, that set frth a list f the defendant s assets and liabilities, mst f which were valued individually. Id. at 551, 550. Here, my client prvided a similarly detailed written valuatin. Her husband s claims that the schedules mit key infrmatin abut the value f my client s real estate hldings and miscalculate her ttal assets, undervaluing them by $1,000,000, are inaccurate. My client prvided either statements f value r recent assessments f value fr each f her prperties hldings t her husband. While Schedule A inaccurately states my client s ttal assets, this misstatement is a clerical errr; each f her prperties is accurately valued individually. CONCLUSION: Recnnect This Pint t Yur Thesis Since Cnnecticut requires nly a general apprximatin f assets, a curt will find my client s disclsure t be fair and reasnable. 5