Whether you are attempting the case analysis test or statute analysis test, you will need to follow some essential principles systematically. IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion) forms the fundamental building blocks of legal analysis. It is the process by which all lawyers think about any legal problem. It provides a systematic way to solving any legal problem.

The nuts-and-bolts of IRAC provide that:-

 

ISSUE	What facts and circumstances brought these parties to court?
RULE	What is the governing law for the issue?
ANALYSIS	Does the rule apply to these unique facts?
CONCLUSION	How does the court’s holding modify the rule of law?

 

Spotting the issue  – The First Step

The key to issue spotting is being able to identify which facts raise which issues. The cases you read will also contain language that signals the important issue. For instance, the judge will simply state: “The case turns upon the question whether….” OR “We come then to the basic issue in the case.”

However, you need to develop issue-spotting skills on your own in order to do well on the exam and become an effective lawyer. During the exam your tutor is not going to state the issue. Ask yourself some of these questions as you read the case:

 

Questions to ask when reading a case:What facts and circumstances brought these parties to court?Are there key words in the facts that suggest an issue? Is the court deciding a question of fact – i.e. the parties are in dispute over what happened – or is it a question of law?

Rule – What is the Law?

Simply put, the rule is the law. The rule could be common law that was developed by the courts or a law that was passed by the legislature. For every case you read, come up with the rule of law by breaking it down into its component parts. In other words, ask the question: what elements of the rule must be proven in order for the rule to hold true?

 

Questions to ask when reading a case:What are the elements that prove the rule?What are the exceptions to the rule? From what authority does it come? What’s the underlying public policy behind the rule (if any)? Are there social considerations?

 

Analysis

This important area is really relatively simple. For every relevant fact, you need to ask whether the fact helps to prove or disprove the rule. If a rule requires that a certain circumstance is present in order for the rule to apply, then the absence of that circumstance helps you reach the conclusion that the rule does not apply. The biggest mistake people make in exam writing is to spot the issue and just recite the rule without doing the analysis. Most tutors assume that you can look up the law, but they want to test whether you can apply the law to a given set of circumstances. The analysis is the most important element of IRAC since this is where the real thinking happens.

 

Questions to ask when reading a case:Which facts help prove which elements of the rule?Why are certain facts relevant? How do these facts satisfy this rule? What types of facts are applied to the rule? How do these facts further the public policy underlying this rule? What’s the counter-argument for another solution?

 

Conclusion – Take a Position

 

The conclusion is sometimes the shortest part of the analysis. It can be a simple “yes” or “no” as to whether the rule applies to a set of facts.  Another common mistake is to conclude something without having a basis for the opinion. In other words, GDL students will spot the issue, state a rule, and then form a conclusion without doing the analysis. Make sure that whatever position you take has a firm grounding in the analysis. Remember that the position you take is always whether or not the rule applies.

 

The ratio decidendi and obiter dicta

 

The term ratio decidendi is a Latin phrase which means the “the reason for deciding”. In simple terms, a ratio is a ruling on a point of law. However, exactly what point of law has been decided depends on the facts of the case.

 

Obiter dicta is a Latin phrase meaning “things said by the way”. Obita dicta are not binding (unlike the ratio), but they may be regarded as persuasive in a future decision. The weight given to dicta usually depends on the seniority of the court and the eminence of the judge in question. Obiter dicta are judicial opinions on points of law which are not directly relevant to the case in question. They are made when a judge chooses to give some indication of how he or she would decide a case similar, but not identical, to case under consideration. These statements are often meant to clarify the legal principle which the judge proposes to apply in his or her judgement.

 

Questions to ask when reading a case:What’s the ratio decidendi of the case?Has the holding modified the existing rule of law? What is the procedural effect of the holding? Is the case overturned, upheld or remanded for retrial? Does the holding further the underlying policy of the rule? Do you agree with the outcome of the case?