Stupid Simple IRAC

Everyone says “just IRAC” when it comes to writing essays on the bar exam.

That drives me crazy too. I’ve heard that since I was a 1L. And it kinda makes sense… until you ACTUALLY TRY TO DO IT.

It’s supposed to be one of the most basic skills in law school (and on the bar exam), but it’s frustrating when you have no idea what you’re writing.

Coming up with things to write is hard! Know the pain of creation. But you don’t have to suffer.

Let’s break down “IRAC” so it finally becomes simple and the least of your concerns. We’re going for the win!

Issue

First of all, on the bar exam, issues are king. Stop trying to look cool with a huge analysis and end up tripping all over yourself.

Issues are really simple. You just state the issue:

Don’t forget to do the same for sub-issues. This is based on one of the rule elements of battery under tort law:

That’s it! Easy, right?

This is going to be the anchor for the ship you’re going to ride to fish points out of the water. Help the graders see these street signs, and they’ll have an easier time giving you points.

Cool, time to move onto—

Wait, how do you even identify the right issues? Great question! I’m glad you asked because everyone else is too chicken to ask how to “issue spot” exactly.

While issues are simple to write, they are NOT always easy to figure out, and they have the MOST impact on your essay’s score.

This gets brushed over so much in law school and bar prep that I’ve devoted an entire technique called issue checking (which probably saved my ass on my second attempt at the bar exam).

“Issue spotting” has no process to it, and therefore is a less reliable method of getting the points you deserve on the essays. I recommend checking for issues instead of spotting issues.

Even looking at the phrase “issue spotting” grosses me out. Just throw it back where it came from with all its clothes and say, “Don’t you ever come back here!”

Rule

Everyone loves this one because it’s the thing they have to memorize. You also have to memorize the issues btw.

Fine, let’s just plug in the rules:

You’re stating principles or major premises that your argument will be based on. Equip only what you will need to get through the issue rather than dumping everything you know about the subject.

Remember these when writing rules (based on common mistakes from reviewing repeater essays):

1. Don’t commingle rules and analyses. Keep them in separate paragraphs, stating the relevant rule(s) first, and the next section only after you’ve stated the rules. Say the rule(s) clearly once, and don’t bring up old news or blindside the grader with new concepts like when you’re fighting with your spouse.
2. Avoid generic rule statements. Narrative descriptions can (if you have time) introduce and show familiarity with the general subject area, but they become too broad or disconnected from the specific doctrine being tested. They’re not as useful for crisply applying to the facts.
   
   Real example of generic rule: “A partnership leads to the partners sharing the risks of losses and gains of their company.”
   
   Better rule statement: “A partnership is an agreement of two or more persons or entities who carry on a business for profit as co-owners. No formal filing is required.”
   
   Now you can use it to connect to facts indicating two people or a lack of corporate filing.
   
3. Include sub-rules for sub-issues and elements where applicable (see above example on harmful or offensive contact). This also helps avoid generic rule statements.
4. That said, beautiful rule statements alone won’t get you far. Don’t spend half your essay time making them sound perfect or memory dumping them to the detriment of other components of IRAC, particularly issues.

Application (Analysis)

Now you’re applying the rule you laid out to the facts.

I prefer to call this “application” instead of “analysis.” Leave the deep analysis for law school where you beat up an issue until it can’t give you any more information.

Bar essays are more straightforward. Take relevant facts from the hypo and connect them to the rules:

1. Best to use a transitional word such as “Here” or “In this case.”
2. Show your work! Like solving an algebra problem, take it step by step. It helps to think “why” and use the word “because” to connect facts to law. Don’t be afraid to “plagiarize” and copy facts from the hypo. You can also make reasonable common-sense logical steps.
3. Do not introduce new rules. State all the principles you’re relying on before you apply them. (In other words, don’t commingle rules and analyses.)

Each application section can have multiple mini-IRACs for sub-rules, like this: I-R-[irac]-[irac]-[irac]-C.

Otherwise, you’ll end up with one giant IRAC soup of words talking about multiple sub-issues at once. Let’s make it simple and clean instead.

Here’s an example application of the sub-rule for the “harmful or offensive contact” sub-issue:

Another, more granular example that hits each portion of the sub-rule we cited above:

• Harmful or offensive contact with P’s person
• P’s person includes P himself or something closely connected to P
• Direct physical contact that would be offensive to a reasonable person

(Bold parts are just to draw your attention. Don’t actually bold these words on the exam.)

Note that you may be explaining obvious things. While these might look like exaggerated examples, what’s obvious to you may not be obvious to someone else. This is part of showing your work.

Not making these rule-to-fact connections is what’s known as “conclusory,” which you don’t want. Prove what you’re asserting.

An alien dropping by this planet should understand your reasoning.

Should you use ping-pong counterarguments?

❌ No to speculations and factual counterarguments.
✅ Yes to reasonable assumptions and legal counterarguments.

“P will argue A…

D will argue B…

No, but actually D’s position is weak because it’s a strawman argument I pulled out of my ass under time pressure and I don’t know why I said it, so yeah, P will argue A, final answer…”

Who cares dude. Just pick a position and argue for it.

You don’t need to make counterarguments as a default. Make a case for the “correct” conclusion. What’s YOUR take on the issue?

Counterarguments can and should be made in the form of legal arguments, not factual interpretations:

1. If there’s an opportunity to do so, argue the “other side” using legal doctrines, e.g., defenses, exceptions, lack of element. Defenses and exceptions are extra issues you’ll get points for. You can apply facts differently from the prima facie case. If you’re dying to use the facts in favor of the opposing party and can’t keep it in your pants, here’s your chance.
2. The rule has split views (e.g., Cardozo and Andrews).

That’s not to say you can’t make reasonable assumptions. For example, smoke blown in your face during a confrontation would be offensive to a reasonable person (the standard for battery). Maybe it wouldn’t be offensive to a cool-headed expert at de-escalation who prefers to have 1:1 conversations about tasteful marketing rather than spammers in his subreddit. But don’t speculate or make up facts on what a party would do.

Real example of speculative language (emphasis mine): “Based on her previous renting and the fair presumption her siblings could make that she would continue to rent it, she should be responsible for the fair rental value. However, she is not obligated to rent it. It could be argued she is not making money off the home and so does nopt owe her siblings the rest of the rent.”

Make legal arguments, not opinions.

You have room to make more detailed factual arguments for the same given issue when:

1. The call of the question is narrow (“Did the court rule correctly on its motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction?”) rather than broad (“What may D be guilty of?”).
2. The facts are vague.

You could drown your essay in ping-pong arguments… Or you could keep it stupid simple.

(You should analyze both sides if you’re writing an objective memo on the performance test. Even then, you can get a decent score even if you don’t drown your answer in factual ping-pong arguments.)

Conclusion

Make a conclusion based on the argument you just made. You likely know the conclusion already as you’re setting up your issues and rules.

For the “harmful or offensive contact” sub-issue:

For the “battery” issue:

(Bold parts are just to draw your attention. Don’t actually bold these words on the exam.)

Often, there is a correct answer. But you’ll likely still get points even if you arrive at a different solution (especially where facts are vague) as long as you’ve resolved the issues logically using IRAC.

I like to recommend optionally writing a brief summary of your argument, like the parts that begin with “because” in the above conclusion examples. You COULD stop at “D committed battery,” but it’s always good to give reasons if you can. It neatly ties up the IRAC unit.

Writing like a bar taker

You can see that the basic IRAC structure is rather mechanical and formulaic. In order of importance:

1. Identify the issue or sub-issue
2. State the rule(s) you need to resolve the issue
3. Apply the rule to the facts
4. Conclude

This isn’t a creative writing class. This is a closed-universe exercise. Don’t let your prior life experience get in the way.