Using Formulas to Help Students Master

the “R” and “A” of IRAC

Professors Hollee S. Temple and Grace J. Wigal

West Virginia University College of Law

2006 Legal Writing Institute Conference

Atlanta, Georgia

A Tale of Two Teachers…

Today’s DiscussionI. Goals for First-Year Students

II. Types of Legal Reasoninga. Deductive (IRAC)b. Inductive (R of IRAC)c. Analogical (A of IRAC)

III. Formulas to Help Students Gain Competency in Reasoning and Writing

Part A: Presentation FormulasPart B: Analytical Formulas

Goals for First-Year Course

• Professional competence in legal reasoning

• Professional competence in legal research

• Professional competence in legal writing

• Professional persona in legal workplace

Types of Legal Reasoning

• Deductive Reasoning

• Inductive Reasoning

• Analogical Reasoning

Why Use Formulas?

• Our students need help entering this new “discourse community”

• The “Google generation” likes formulas• Past teachers have stressed content over

form• Just like in sports, we have to get students

into the right ballpark before they can be expected to develop expertise and finesse

Types of Formulas for Today’s Discussion

• Presentation Formulas

• Analytical Formulas

Presentation Formula #1: IRACThe Basics

• A formula for thinking about and presenting an ultimate legal conclusion

• Presents a form of reasoning expected by the trained legal mind

• This is the “big” formula

IRAC Embraces Deductive Reasoning

Issue

Rule

Analysis

Conclusion

Question

Major Premise

Minor Premise

Conclusion

Deductive Reasoning Example

Question: Is Socrates mortal?

Let’s reason through it.

Major Premise (learned rule through observation): All men are mortal.

Minor Premise (factual conclusion): Socrates is a man.

Conclusion: Socrates is mortal because all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man.

Presentation Formula #1: IRAC IRAC Outline

Big I/C: Greenbrier will succeed in her negligence action because by failing to provide adequate security, her landlord proximately caused her injury.

Big R: Negligence = 1) Duty + 2) Breach + 3) Causation + 4) Injury

Big A: “Nested” IRACs on each element Requires I-R-A-C analysis for

each element of the Big RBig C: Greenbrier can satisfy all

four elements, so she wins!

Presentation Formula #2: The Big A “Nested” IRACs

1) Duty

I/C

R

A

C/A

C

2) Breach

I/C

R

A

C

3) Causation

I/C

R

A

C

4) Damages

I/C

R

A

C

Techniques to Help Students Master The Presentation Formulas

Emphasize structure!

1) Use colors to differentiate I-R-A-C

(Mary Beth Beazley’s brilliant idea)

1) Color-Code With IRAC

Mrs. Greenbrier will prove that Potomac owed her a legal duty because Potomac was responsible for keeping common areas of the building safe. A landlord’s duty is to exercise “reasonable care” to protect invitees from unreasonable risks caused by dangerous conditions in common areas. Butler. Here, Mrs. Greenbrier was rightfully in the elevator, a common area of the building, at the time of the incident. Just as the landlord in Butler owed the plaintiff a legal duty to protect her from an unsecured post in the rear porch, Potomac owed Mrs. Greenbrier a duty of “reasonable care” to protect her from “unreasonable risk of harm” in the elevator. Therefore, Mrs. Greenbrier satisfies the duty element.

2)Sheila Simon’s IRAC Recipe

IRAC is like a lasagna.

www.law.siu.edu/ssimon/lasagna

Diners expect (and enjoy) a particular structure.

Give the diners the structure they expect,

and everyone is happy.

Don’t mess with a good structure!

If you change the structure, you confuse the diner.

Avoid the blender!

Techniques to Help Students Master The Presentation Formulas

3) Use peer critiques

4) Music examples

When all else fails,

keep showing the blender!

Analytical Formulas

• Formulas to help students reason through and write about the sub-parts of IRAC

– Formulas for the R section

– Formulas for the A section

Formulas for the R of IRAC

Formula #1: Simple Rule• R = Simple Rule + (maybe)

Case IllustrationSection 61-8-9(a) of the West Virginia Code provides: (a)

A person is guilty of indecent exposure when such person intentionally exposes his or her sex organs … and does so under circumstances in which the person knows that the conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm. W. Va. Code.

For example, in Randall, the defendant exposed his genitals several times to an eleven-year-old boy. Because “persons of reasonable intelligence” could conclude that the defendant’s conduct would cause affront or alarm, the court held that the defendant’s conduct constituted indecent exposure.

Formulas for the R of IRAC

Formula #2: Complex Rule

• R = Rule Synthesis +

Case Illustrations

Formulas for the R of IRAC

• Rule Synthesis/Inductive Reasoning

Synthesized Rule

Particular 1

Particular 2

Particular 3

Ingredients

Formulas for the R of IRAC

Formula #3: Rule Synthesis

Synthesis =

1) What is the rule?

2) What isn’t the rule (exceptions)?

3) Which factors will the Court consider?

Example A: Strong Rule Synthesis

Landlords have a duty to exercise reasonable

care to protect invitees from foreseeable risks of

harm, including foreseeable criminal acts of third

parties, in areas under the landlord’s control. Butler

(general rule); Doe (foreseeable criminal acts).

However, landlords do not have an absolute duty to

protect invitees from “open and obvious dangers.”

Butler. A danger is open and obvious if “an average

user of ordinary intelligence could discover the

danger and risk presented on casual inspection.” Id.

Example B: Strong Rule Synthesis

Under West Virginia law, a person is guilty of indecent exposure when he or she (1) intentionally exposes his or her sex organs, (2) does so under circumstances in which he or she knows that the conduct will likely cause affront or alarm, and (3) does so without the consent of the victim. W. Va. Code § 61-8-9; Randall. In analyzing the defendant’s intent, the Court will carefully consider the circumstances surrounding the exposure. Jones.

Formulas for the R of IRAC

Formula #4 : Case Illustrations

Case Illustration =

1) Key proposition

+

2) Factual background

+

3) Reasoning

+

4) Holding

Example A: Case IllustrationIn analyzing proximate cause, the Michigan

Supreme Court considers whether the landlord had prior

notice of similar crimes. (KEY PROPOSITION) For

example, in Doe, the plaintiff was raped on the vacant ninth

floor of the defendant landlord’s office building. (FACTUAL

BACKGROUND) Because there was no evidence that the

landlord had no prior notice of similar crimes in the building

(REASONING), the court held the landlord could not

foresee the plaintiff’s specific injury, and therefore did not

proximately cause the plaintiff’s injury. (HOLDING)

Example B: Case IllustrationIn analyzing the defendant’s knowledge,

the court likely will consider the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s conduct objectively (KEY PROPOSITION). In Capetta, a topless dancer exposed her breasts to patrons and allowed them to touch her breasts. The patrons of the establishment were willing participants, solicited her conduct, and did not leave in shock (FACTUAL BACKGROUND). Because a reasonable person would interpret the patrons’ conduct to signal approval (REASONING), the court held that the defendant had no reason to know that her exposed breasts would cause affront or alarm (HOLDING).

Formulas for A of IRAC

Formula #1: The A of IRAC

1) Give your best fact first, and predict!

2) Explicitly compare to the precedent

3) Connect analogy or distinction to the expected result

Analysis Formula #1: Example A

Greenbrier can point to her assailant’s violent criminal

background to establish causation. The attacker had

stabbed a woman in her home several years before this

incident. (BEST FACTS/PREDICT) Unlike in Doe, in which

the past criminal incident was nonviolent and the court held

that the landlord therefore could not have foreseen a violent

crime, here the assailant had a history of the same type of

violence. (EXPLICIT A OR D) Thus, because Greenbrier’s

attacker had committed a stabbing before, the court is likely

to rule differently here and find causation because it was

foreseeable that the same violent act would recur.

(EXPECTED RESULT).

Analysis Formula #1: Example BHere, because Ms. Boyle was asked

repeatedly to cover herself, the prosecution can show that she knew her conduct was causing alarm. (BEST FACTS) Unlike in Capetta, in which the court held that a topless dancer would not know that she was affronting men who were signaling their approval by giving her money, here Ms. Boyle was notified that her conduct was offensive when both the lifeguard and another patron asked her to be more discreet while breastfeeding. (COMPARE) Thus, Ms. Boyle’s conduct likely satisfies the knowledge requirement because she was twice alerted to the offensiveness of her conduct. (CONNECT)

Formulas for A of IRACFormula #2: Explicit Comparison

(Analogical Reasoning)

Like/unlike Case A, where the Court held X because of Y, here we have/don’t have Y. Therefore, we expect the same/different result because ______.

(Consult Sarah Ricks and Julie Baker articles for additional formulas)

Example of Explicit Comparison

• Unlike in Capetta, in which the court held that a topless dancer would not know that she was affronting men who were signaling their approval by giving her money, here Ms. Boyle was notified that her conduct was offensive when both the lifeguard and another patron asked her to be more discreet while breastfeeding.

Bonus Formula for I/C

I/C= Because X (key fact),

then Y (legal conclusion).

Example:

Because the victims were children and therefore legally unable to consent to indecent exposure, the prosecution will prove that Ms. Boyle failed to obtain their consent.

Conclusions

• Mastering legal reasoning and writing is a huge challenge for 1Ls.

• While no single organizing paradigm can apply to the analysis of all legal issues, formulas can help bridge the learning gap and set students on a path toward professional competency.

Questions?

More Complex Analogy/Distinction

Fact A Fact B Fact C Policy Reasoning Holding

Fact A Fact B Fact C Policy Reasoning Holding

Fact A Fact B Fact C Policy Reasoning Holding

Fact A Fact B Fact C Policy Reasoning Holding