HOW TO ANSWER LEGAL QUESTIONS

IRAC METHOD 

JOSHUA UFEDO BABA

UNIVERSITY OF JOS

Introduction.

      Answering legal questions is strenuous  because it allows you to think beyond the question itself, and also take into cognizance the context it is meant to be in. Problem questions are mentally laborious, and just as the name embodies, they are notoriously problematic often weaving problems with controversies sought to be resolved. 

The first time I encountered a problem question, I was fresh out of secondary school and running a pre-degree program, the questions were replete in the infamous Law of Contract where case laws as old as one's great-grandfather established principles. With no prior knowledge of how to face such problems, I felt chanced upon, cornered, and even contemplated if I missed a class where such long scenarios were taught. Got out of the hall after the exam and finally realized that the question had a structure for answering, and the first step in that structure was deciphering the code. 

Problem questions are questions dealing with disputes arising in a scenario. These questions often come with stories about what a party did, or 'did not do' (omitted). Hence, they are very fraught with danger in approaching it as from the story one can pick tons of issues or grounds for controversy.

Still, these questions even when problematic are essential for every law student. This is because cases tendered before practicing lawyers are like cadavers to be dissected; they are done conscientiously reckoning what area of law is applicable and going into the sinews of law to resolve the case.. This also assists a student in how to arrange points, argue, and apply critical thinking.

Cumulatively, how does one go about problem questions? There is a method called IRAC. Concerning its invention, there have been disputes as to when it was conceived, however, this method is crucial for arranging one's thought process and logically answering them. The acronym stands for

I— Issue

R— Rules/Relevant Law

A— Application 

C— Conclusion.

This article will define each letter of the acronym and what they entail in answering problem questions.

Issues

The issue is a pivotal point in answering law questions, the very crux of problem questions is that they are saddled on one's knowledge of the area of law in dispute. Like a craftsman, catching the issue can only be done after understanding the overlaying scenario. Issues are fundamental since it is their very establishment that leads the flow of every argument, conversation, or advice, noting that missing the issue is like missing the whole time plot.

How are issues identified?

It is worth noting that there can be more than one issue in a question, and a question in fact can mirror various concepts in different areas of law. Yet, issues are boundaries for discussion, they say 'You can go this far, but no further'. This is because the main issue is at the heart of the scenario, so you ask questions like;

— Where does it all culminate?

— Where does the dispute arise?

— What is the contention of the parties?

— Where can a case be made?

Issues deal with scopes that are often set out to limit writing in general, they define how points are driven in the argument. The best way to define the scope of an issue is first, to take into cognizance what course you are answering the question in — is it a Contract? Tort? Insurance? Commercial Law? — if it is a Contract for instance probably done in earlier levels, it is unnecessary to raise the issue on 'Premium' when 'Consideration' is being discussed. Issues are to limit the scope of the area of law you are engaged in.

Secondly, the reason so many issues can waylay one of their paths is because some are inputed to steer one off course. However, an in-depth analysis will help in maintaining one's arrangement. At what point do both parties dispute? Where did their consensus fall asunder? — That is where the issue abounds, miss it and your writing becomes wobbly and erroneous. 

How are issues couched?

The issues are written in rhetorical questions, the simple trick is the 'Whether or not...' students use when raising issues;

—Whether or not the court has jurisdiction to entertain such cases?

— Whether or not it was slander?

— Whether or not past consideration is a valid consideration.

This posing of question helps in setting the course of the argument as the issues you raised are the ground you argue upon. It is like a court session (debate) where issues for determination are raised. 

Still, you can couch your issues using only 'Whether' without negating it(not). The main point is that you get the issue in contention right, there is no established way you are to put your issue after the conventional 'Whether or not...'

Rules/Relevant Laws.

After setting a course by raising an issue, the rules are to be followed. What statutory provision, case law, or scholarly opinions are definitive of the issues raised? Note, that it is more advisable to use statutory provision or case law to lay your issue, scholarly opinions are admissible after establishing the rule imbued in statutes or cases. The only exception is if there are no statutes or cases that define such a rule. You can hold, what case? If it is an issue about consideration; you can put its definition by Currie v. Misa. If it is jurisdiction, Madukolu v. Nkemdilim. 

The aim is to stipulate an issue closely related to the fact of the scenario. This is essential as the rule ensures that arguments canvassed are not done on a '"trust me bro" basis, but on a settled case or stimulated provision similar to the scenario if possible or decisive of its concept if impossible. 

Rules are obtained from studying cases or statutes, every legal concept already institutionalized as principles has statutes or cases where they either emanate from or are grounded. There are no fast tracks, rules involve the conscientious study of statutes, cases, and opinions, and are essential in problem questions. 

Application/Analysis

The application is a rigorous procedure in the IRAC method and the longest. The application involves a fusion of both the rule and the scenario in the problem question. Just as the rule involves a sturdy search for statutes or cases, the application is where the fact is expounded.

 Here, the facts in the cases grounded in the rule, and similar to the scenario of the problem question are written. This opens an intertwining between the provision of the statute, the facts of the case, and how they relate to the scenario.

How is the application done?

— Since relevant rules are the place where the most synonymous case to the scenario is given, an application follows the relationship between the facts of the rules (preferably, the fact of the case and what the court held) and the similarity it has with the scenario.

— The application makes room for the introduction of other cases that cement the point you are making. These could be provisional cases that follow the grounded case. Yet, these cases that come subsequently are to annotate the major 'case' and the argument you are to make.

— Make sure that the application — of the case and scenario — are merged. There must be a merger as the rule is an authority for the resolution of disputes emanating from the scenario.

— Most scenarios are derived from decided cases, the rule should enumerate the decided case and the analysis, joining them together.

— Your scenario should be argued or resolved inter alia with the decided case. Deviations are not allowed, but exceptions can come in only manners that drive the point. 

— Assorting the analysis with other decided cases is essential, just like nails that hold the structure. These may be ratio decidendi.

— An analysis must lead to a conclusion.

Conclusion

Conclusions are the point where your suggestions, advice, and opinions come in. If the question tells you to advise a party, you give your advice along with what the court held in the authority you laid down as a rule. If the question goes further, telling you to also counsel the other party, you give your advice also based on the court ruling; and the merit of the case, if he has any. Conclusion is the final part of the crucible and an important part of the procedure, since disputes in the scenario are meant to be resolved, the conclusion is where the dispute is resolved. Directly linked to each of the processes, a conclusion can run stale if any of the processes have been contravened. Thus, the conclusion rests upon the validity of the argument right from the issues raised.

Conclusions put the parting call, a final roll of the curtain. An adept student will make sure the conclusion is a surmise of the whole process, sometimes two lines that illustrate whether or not a case is probable.

Synopsis

— The IRAC method is the rule for answering problem questions. It stands for;

• I— Issue

• R— Rule

• A — Application

• C— Conclusion.

Note: When answering problem questions, you do not have to state them.

— The first process is raising an issue. An issue is the bone of contention between both parties, it advances from places where a cause of action emanates.

— The second process is the rule, the rule is the authority that guides the issue. It simply indicates what statutory provision, case law, and in some cases, scholarly definition is best synonymous with the issue. In other parlance, what authority(ies) settled the issue in the scenario?

— The third process is the application. The application narrates the facts of the case and how similar it is to the scenario. This process ensures that the resolution of the scenario lies in the established authority given as a rule. The application gives an analysis of how the court will rule in such cases based on how it rules on the authority. Accordingly, the application allows the introduction of other settled cases.

— The fourth is the conclusion. Here you give your opinion or advice based on the judgment of the authority. A conclusion invariably summarizes the whole process.

Problem questions become easier to navigate over time. They are not a sign of being unfortunate in an exam, rather they are the truest test of knowledge. You get the hack of steering such questions as you advance. They are indispensable to every law student as the IRAC method ensures that arguments and answers on other topics are structured in a neat, readable, and critically thought-of manner.