I was working with a student today whose professor had set incredibly stringent word limits for each exam question. I asked him if his professor wanted him to IRAC his essay or not. He wasn’t sure, so I told him to go to office hours and find out what kind of shortcuts he was allowed to take to make his answer more concise. Turns out, according to his professor, “rule statements [on this particular exam] aren’t worth any points.”
The student was perplexed. He had been practicing a standard IRAC formula all semester. The idea of analyzing a hypo without a rule seemed daunting, and useless. I explained that a professor who doesn’t want rule statements isn’t telling you to completely forget the rules you’ve been learning in her class. She probably just wants you to take a different approach.
First things first. If you don’t already know the answer to the question of whether your professor wants you to IRAC or not, ask. If you’re not getting any credit at all for rules on your exam, then there’s absolutely no point spending time writing them out. Instead, you should take an integrated approach. Please note, though, many professors do want and require full rule statements, so all the more reason to ask if you’re unsure.
So, what is an integrated approach, and how do you do it?
What I mean by “integrated” is that your analysis will still track the rule statement, but you will have to keep the rule in your head instead of writing it down on your screen.
Once you have your comprehensive scratch paper outline, it should include every issue you’ve spotted, and below that (or next to it in a thought bubble, or at the end of an arrow if you’re making a flow chart—there are many different ways to do this), you should have all of the facts that “match” to that issue. You should be able to essentially write your essay using just your scratch paper because your pre-plan outline is that fact-specific and detailed. Note again, though, you’re still not writing out any rules. A lot of students at this point ask, “well, how do I know which facts match to each issue?” The rule in your head drives which facts you match to each issue.
When you take an integrated approach, you hold the rule in your head and mentally bold the buzzwords from that rule. What I mean by this, is that you should decide which elements from the rule you’re going to be applying to the facts. Then, you write a header for your issue, and follow it directly with analysis. Your analysis should still track the rule statement and you should still discuss the facts in the order of the rule elements that trigger them.
This might be easier to visualize with some examples. Let’s try one for negligence. So, we know that the basic rule for negligence is that the plaintiff must prove four elements against the defendant:
- duty
- breach
- causation
- damage
We also know that the question of whether there is a duty or not can depend on whether the plaintiff is foreseeable. We know that the generally applicable standard of care is that of a reasonable person under the circumstances. We also know that when we look at causation, we need to be addressing both actual (but for) and proximate cause, which looks at foreseeability.
If we mentally bolded the “buzzwords” from that conglomeration of rules, we would get something like this:
The basic rule for negligence is that the plaintiff must prove four elements against the defendant:
- duty
- breach
- causation
- damage
We also know that the question of whether there is a duty or not can depend on whether the plaintiff is foreseeable. We know that the generally applicable standard of care is that of a reasonable person under the circumstances. We also know that when we look at causation, we need to be addressing both actual (but for) and proximate cause, which looks at foreseeability.
Thus, what you write on your screen could look something like this:
Negligence
Johnny was in the crosswalk right in front of Wilbur’s car which means that he was in the zone of danger and would be a foreseeable plaintiff because people walking and driving on the same street at the same time could potentially hurt each other. Since there is no indication that Wilbur was a professional driver, Wilbur probably owed Johnny the usual duty of reasonable care to behave as a reasonable driver under the circumstances.
Even though Wilbur was driving slower than the speed limit, which may or may not have been reasonable (we would need more facts to decide), he still ran the red light. A reasonable driver would not have done this. Thus, Wilbur most likely breached his duty to Johnny because he acted carelessly in not stopping.
But for Wilbur’s car running through the red light and striking Johnny’s body, Johnny would not have fallen down and cut his face on the manhole cover. Thus, Wilbur’s breach was the actual cause of Johnny’s harm. It would have been foreseeable that running a red light would result in the type of harm that occurred—injuries to a pedestrian.
Thus, Wilbur’s breach was also the proximate cause of Johnny’s injuries. Johnny suffered actual damage since he hit the ground and cut his face. Thus, since all elements are met, Johnny would be able to recover against Wilbur for negligence.
As I noted above, each professor will have their own exam style. In my Torts class in law school, this kind of analysis would not have gotten the A. Why? Because my Torts professor specifically told us she wanted absolutely verbatim rule statements written out in full in an IRAC format. However, in my Crim. class, my professor probably would have gotten really annoyed if he had to slog through full IRACs for every crime I discussed. Bottom line, what you write on your exam should reflect the tips your professor has been willing to share, if any. If, like the student I mentioned above, you already know rule statements aren’t going to get you anywhere, you may want to start integrating. Either way, though, focus on a comprehensive blueprint for your essay, and keep practicing!
— – —
Want more law school tips? Sign up for our free mailing list today.
And check out these helpful posts:
- From Bare Bones to Meaty Analysis: How to Skeleton Outline Your Essay
- The Elusive Mini-IRAC
- Rely on Systems, Not Willpower
- You’re Totally Unprepared for a Law School Exam! How to Avoid Disaster
Image Credit: Galushko Sergey/Shutterstock
Looking for some help to do your best in law school? Find out about our law school tutoring options.
Leave a Reply