The Importance of IRAC and Legal Writing jsrrnsv METZLER' While working for an appellate judge, I have more than once written in a bench memo, "It's not entirely clear what the Appellant's argument is on this issue, but one possibility is . . . ." This is typically not a good sign for the Appellant's chances of winning (or the Appellee's, if it is the Appellee whose argument is unclear), and it is a sure sign of a poorly written brief. In this article, I offer some advice for law students seeking to avoid submitting a brief. a law school exam, or a bar exam essay that leaves the reader baffled as to the content of the argument. However, as a recent law school graduate myself, I do not profess to have developed any secret techniques for legal writing that are guaranteed to improve your arguments. But I have developed an increased appreciation for the importance of practicing the widely taught legal writing technique known as IRAC. On a basic level, IRAC is simply an acronym for organizing a legal argument that involves a description of the Issue, an explanation of the legal Rule; an Application of that rule to the facts of the case; and nally, a statement of your Conclusion. And while there is some value to IRAC as merely an organizational tool, I would like to impress upon students intending to practice law, especially litigation, that IRAC is much more than an organizational structure. [RAG is an important mental exercise that forces an author to a deeper understanding of the Eegal issues at stake. Understanding IRAC is indispensable for sifting through hundreds of cases to find the one that most helps your case. IRAC is the key to success on law school exams, the bar exam, and a successful career in litigation. In my experience, using the IRAC technique in legal writing has helped me immensely to bring issues into focus. Many cases and law school exams present situations that we have intuitive feelings about. However, these "gut" feelings will not carry a lawyer very far in court (I suspect that very fewjudges have been swayed by a defense attorney ' Jeffrey Metzler received his B.A. from Brown University in 1995, his MA. in Public Administration from Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs in 1999, and hist. from Yale law School in 2002. He taught high school for two years in the New York City public school system (1995-97), clerked for one year with judge Diana Gribbon Mot: in the 11.5. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (200208), and is currently an Assistant Attorney General in the New York State Oice of the Attorney General. 502 UNIVERSITY OF DETROITMERCYLAWREWEW [Vol. 80:50] explaining that the evidence should be excluded because the search just didn't feel right to the defense counsel). To make a persuasive legal argument, it is often necessary to deconstruct your intuition into discrete issues, that when resolved, will suggest the correct resolution of the case. Using the IRAC technique forces you to engage in this deconstruction process, and to resolve each issue individually. If your intuition about a case is correct, the resolution of each individual issue will lead to that result like a logical syllogism. Faithful adherence to IRAC forces you to engage in this deconstruction process for two reasons. First, to follow lRAC's organizational structure and begin a paragraph or section with a presentation of the Issue, one must identify the discrete issue at hand. Many law school exams, for example, test precisely the skill of identifying the discrete issues presented in a particular scenario (hence the name "issue-spotter"). Second, distinguishing between Rule and Application is often critical to effectively joining battle with your opponent (or with the trial court on appeal). In some cases, the heart of the dispute is over the legal rule to be applied. For example, the Supreme Court has at times required that for an issue to be appealable under the collateral order doctrine, it must present a "serious and unsettled question."' In other cases, the Court has ignored this requirement.2 Thus, a dispute over whether an issue must present a "serious and unsettled question" or not is a dispute over the correct Rule. By contrast, the parties agree in some cases as to what the legal rule is, but differ over how it should be applied to the particular factual circumstances at hand. For example, on most bar exams you will not be asked to reconcile conicting precedent. Rather, the Rule is not in dispute you must show that you have learned it, and can apply it. Thus, part of the value of IRAC is to force you to engage in the mental exercise of distinguishing Rule from Application thereby crystallizing the source of dispute. This skill, of course, is invaluable in understanding an area of jurisprudence, making an effective argument, and in reaching a defensible resolution in a case. Furthermore, IRAC is a valuable a tool for reading case law as it is and for writing legal papers. Because, in my experience, most judicial opinions are organized according to the IRAC technique, you can use this general roadmap to quickly locate the section of the opinion that is mest relevant to the principal point of contention in the case at hand (since, by using IRAC, you will have already 1. See, e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 1.1.5. 731 (1982). 2. See, c.g., Coopers 8c Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 US. 463, 468 {1978);johnson v. jones. 515 U.S. 304. 310-11 (1995). 2003] THE IMPORTANCE OF IRAC MD LEGAL WTING 503 identied whether the principal point of contention is over the rule, the application of the rule, or both}. Of course, simply appreciating the importance of IRAC will not, without more, improve Your legai writing or ability to analyze complex areas of law. Thus, I strongly recommend practicing legal writing whiie in law schooi as much as possible. This includes participating in clinics, moot court competitions, as well as doing practice essays to prepare for exams {these are commercially available with sample answers for most black letter courses). Maximizing your opportunities to practice legal writing in law school has as least two advantages. First, you actually get to practice your writing; most of my classmates who are new associates at law rms do not receive many opportunities to craft whole legal documents from scratch. Second, practicing legal writing in law school affords you with unique opportunities for constructive feedback. Notwithstanding the clich that practice makes perfect, my experience is that this is only true when there is an opportunity for feedback on what one is doing right and wrong. One lawyer that appears before our court, for example, regularly makes the same mistakes in his briefs and at oral argument. Because it would probably be inappropriate for the judges to give him style pointers, I expect he will continue to make those mistakes. In law school, by contrast, the professors are paid, at least in part, to give you feedback on your writing. Take advantage of this by writing as much as you can, and by always seeking constructive criticism of your work. In sum, my advice to students seeking to practice law is to learn IRAC, and to practice using it in law school as much as possible. You will do better on your exams, have an easier time passing the bar, be more successful in your legal career, and may just achieve a higher State of inner peace and happiness