IRAC Method: Build a Fact-to-Rule Analysis

The IRAC method has four parts: Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion. State the question, explain the rule, show how it applies to the facts, and give your answer. Monash's legal problem-solving guide uses this structure for problem questions and legal memos.

The hard part is the link between a fact and a rule. If you list the facts and jump to an answer, the reader has to guess how you got there. Use the worked example below to keep source text beside each claim, then check any draft outline from Atlas against the files you are allowed to use.

The 4 parts of IRAC

Each part answers a different question. Use these prompts while drafting:

1. Issue: What legal question needs an answer? Name the point in dispute and the facts that make it matter. A broad topic such as “contract law” gives the reader less help than a question about whether a stated condition was met.
2. Rule: What test applies? State the rule's terms and cite its source. Include conditions, exceptions, or factors that affect the result. Define new terms before you use them.
3. Application: Why do these facts meet or fail that test? Link each key fact to a rule term. Explain other readings, likenesses to earlier cases, and differences that might change the result.
4. Conclusion: What answer follows? Answer the issue based on the reasons you have shown. State any doubt that affects the result instead of filling a gap with a made-up fact.

Give each distinct issue its own IRAC. For a larger question, break out the rule parts or exceptions that need their own discussion. The Georgetown rule-writing handout describes tests with required elements, weighed factors, or exceptions. Match your analysis to the test you have.

Each letter does not need exactly one paragraph. Give disputes enough space and check the required format. For a full memo, our legal research memo guide covers the other sections as well as the analysis.

Read facts and rules together

Identify the material facts

Read the whole problem first. Note who acted, what happened, when it happened, and what you still do not know. Then read the rule sources and return to the facts.

A detail matters when it affects a rule, an argument, or the question you must answer. Monash's guide asks you to find these material facts without retelling the whole story at the start.

Retain each source's role

Keep a reference beside each useful passage: a problem paragraph, statute section, or case page. Copy exact words when their meaning is in dispute, and label your paraphrase when you restate them. Keep source text apart from your inference.

For a rule drawn from an opinion, a case brief helps record the holding and material facts before you apply it to the new problem. The brief is a source map, while IRAC is your reasoning structure.

The excerpt below shows Georgetown's tests for a useful rule statement. Check whether the rule you state can support the analysis you write next.

Georgetown Law's Creating Effective Rule Statements, page 2 lists five criteria for a useful rule statement. This excerpt preserves the handout's wording.

For real legal work, check each source's role and whether it is still good law. Uploading a court opinion does not prove it binds the court in your problem. Georgetown's authority guide explains how binding and persuasive sources work within federal courts.

Use guidance that fits the legal system where your problem arises.

If the documents are scanned, check the original page when extracted text looks wrong. A missed word such as “unless” can reverse a condition. The PDF analyzer guide explains how document structure and readable text affect source inspection.

A worked IRAC example

This fictional classroom exercise shows the structure. The rule and facts are made up for teaching; they are not an actual law, case, or court opinion. The exercise asks only whether a library may charge the late fee under the rule below.

Rule packet, paragraph R1: A library may charge a late fee when a borrowed camera is returned after 5 p.m. on its due date. It must waive the fee if a library closure prevented a timely return.

Problem packet, paragraphs F1–F3: Maya's camera was due at 5 p.m. on Tuesday (F1), but she found the library locked when she arrived at 4:50 p.m. (F2). She returned it at 9 a.m. on Wednesday (F3). The packet does not say whether another return route was available or what caused the closure.

Before writing, map the facts to the two parts of R1. The table keeps the supplied text apart from what still needs reasoning.

Table 1: The completed IRAC could read as follows:

1. Issue. May the library charge Maya a late fee when she reached the locked library before the deadline but returned the camera the next morning?

2. Rule. Under the classroom rule in R1, a return after the due-date deadline permits a fee. The fee must be waived if a library closure prevented timely return.

3. Application. Maya returned the camera on Wednesday morning (F3), after Tuesday's 5 p.m. deadline (F1), so the late-return condition is met. However, she reached the library at 4:50 p.m. and found it locked (F2). This supports an argument that closure stopped her from returning it on time. The library could argue that another route remained open, but the packet provides no such fact. The locked building alone does not settle whether every permitted route was unavailable. Whether closure prevented return therefore remains disputed on the supplied facts.

4. Conclusion. Although the return was late, R1 requires a waiver if closure prevented timely return. Maya's arrival supports that position, but the missing facts about return access leave the waiver question unresolved.

The answer avoids inventing a return box or a new exception. It explains the connection instead of treating “the library was locked” as a complete answer.

Make application do the reasoning

Link each fact to a rule term

For each rule term, ask: Which fact matters, why does it matter, and what is the strongest other reading? Then write that link in a sentence. Monash's application guidance asks you to use facts and law, compare earlier cases, and address the other side where needed.

In the classroom example, “Maya deserves a waiver because the library was locked” skips the word “prevented.” The stronger version explains her arrival before the deadline, links the locked building to her inability to enter, and identifies the unknown return access. It gives the reader a reason to accept or question the inference.

Compare earlier cases

When using cases, compare the facts that drove the earlier court's reasoning. Explain why a shared fact matters under the rule, or why a difference weakens the match. Georgetown's case-comparison guide links the prior case's facts, holding, and reasons to the new result.

A shared topic or a quote on its own is not enough.

Preserve contrary evidence

Address facts that weaken your preferred answer. If sources support two readings, keep both until you can explain your choice and the weight you give each fact.

When to use IRAC or CREAC

Use the structure your instructor or reviewer asks for. CREAC begins with a conclusion, then gives the rule, explains it, applies it, and returns to the conclusion. Lewis & Clark's writing guidance keeps earlier cases in the rule explanation and the current facts in the application. It groups the discussion by rule.

You can use IRAC to plan a question even when the final text uses another order. Follow the assignment's format rather than adding sections just to match an acronym.

A case brief has a different job from a new problem answer. The brief reports the court's question, reasons, and decision from the opinion. For a new problem, you use the sources you are allowed to cite to reason about new facts. Keep the court's actual result apart from the result you suggest, as the case-comparison handout does when it applies earlier reasoning.

Check an IRAC outline in Atlas

For files you are allowed to use with AI, Atlas can help compare the problem and rule sources. You still decide which text matters and whether each link makes sense. Use the same outline you would review on paper:

1. Add the allowed files. In your project, select Add a source, then Upload files for PDFs. Wait for processing and check the pages. Give the problem facts and each rule source a clear name.
2. Select the sources in chat. In Ask a question, type @ and select the problem file and the rule sources you want compared.
3. Request an outline from those sources. Ask for each issue, the fact and rule citations, reasons for each link, the other side's argument, and gaps. The prompt below keeps these parts distinct.
4. Check the text and each inference. Open each numbered citation and read the text around it, including exceptions. A PDF citation can open a page or passage if it has a precise location. If it does not, find the text yourself.
5. Correct and save the outline. Remove made-up facts or rules without source support. Mark open points. Select New, then Note, paste your checked outline, add the source references you need, and wait for Saved.

Compare the named problem file and allowed rule sources. Draft an IRAC outline for each distinct issue. Give separate citations for the facts and rules. Explain why each fact matters under the rule, include the other side's argument, and flag missing facts or claims without source support. Do not invent sources or fill gaps in the problem. Mark each conclusion as a draft for my review.

For the classroom example, reject an answer that says a return box existed without support in F1–F3. Also reject a firm waiver decision that skips the “prevented” condition in R1. When you check an AI answer with citations, read the text and see whether it supports the claim.

Atlas cannot decide which law controls, check later case treatment with a citator, decide liability, or give legal advice. You or a qualified legal reviewer must do those checks with the right legal research tools. The steps above follow public Atlas docs; they do not prove that a generated legal answer is correct.

Review before writing the final answer

Read the outline against the assignment and source packet. Does each issue have a rule and an application? Does the conclusion answer that issue? Make sure you can find each key fact in the problem and trace every rule to its source.

Then check the argument. Use the rule's actual terms, address facts that work against your answer, and explain the strongest point for the other side. If a fact is missing, check how that gap affects the result.

For real law, verify which court or jurisdiction it applies to and whether later law changes its effect. Georgetown's authority guidance shows why a source's role matters as well as its words.

Keep the checked source text and open questions beside your draft. You or your reviewer can use them to correct the argument before writing the final answer.