nested IRAC – Learn Law Better

The Rule Dump: #1 Law School Exam Mistake

The rule dump is the number one mistake students make on their law school exams. This is when the student throws out as much information from the course that they can remember, hoping that some of it will stick. Usually the rule dump, also called a brain dump, occurs all on the first page of the essay. Let me explain why professors hate it and why it is hurting your grade.

College Exams

In college, the best grades go to student answers that have lots of information. This is because most college professors test students on knowledge retention. In other words, if you demonstrate that you read the material you get a good grade. That exam writing style will not work in law school.

Law School Exams

While law school essay exams do require you to know the law, that is only the starting point for a well written essay. Law school exams are testing you on higher level thinking skills. In fact, law school professors grade exams by allocating most of the points to those exams that apply the rules to the facts. So here is what law professors think when they see a rule dump. We start asking ourselves, does this student understand the issue or is the student trying to throw everything they know into the answer because the student is confused. For more information on the levels of learning, you may want to look at this article on Bloom’s Taxonomy from Vanderbilt.

Relevance

On a business associations exam testing on vicarious liability, the facts clearly state that Mat is an employee. Some students will then provide a rule dump with all of the rules needed to establish that someone is an employee, like the level of control between principal and agent. But none of that was necessary as the facts provided that Mat is an employee.

That leaves me wondering if the student understands the issue or not. And guess what happens when there is uncertainty? Students receive lower grades. It is possible that the student understood the issue, but because the student employed the brain dump method that student ended up with a lower grade. The learning point here is that you should only provide the rules that are needed to answer the question.

Conflicts

Another problem with the brain dump is that you might provide different rules that appear to conflict with each other. This will also cost you points. For example, suppose that you are writing a negligence essay. There are absolutely no facts provided in the question to indicate that the victims are children. Some students will then discuss the attractive nuisance doctrine. This leaves me wondering if the student understands the question or not.

Hidden Rule

A third problem occurs when the rule that is needed to answer the question is hidden with several superfluous rules. The professor might miss it completely or not appreciate how you wanted that rule applied to the fact pattern.

Keep in mind that law school is a professional school, preparing students to become lawyers and not professors. When you bring your case before a judge, or discuss your case with a partner, that judge or partner only wants to hear about the law relevant to the case—not everything you know about the law. Judges, partners, AND professors are busy people, so only provide the rules you need to answer the question.

Finally, since all exams have some kind of time limit, you are wasting precious time discussing rules that, at best, will be ignored, and at worst, will cost you points.

How to Avoid the Rule Dump

The best way to avoid the rule dump is by using the IRAC Method. This is where you discuss each issue separately: state the Issue, provide the Rule, Analyze the facts, and give your Conclusion. Unfortunately, many students misunderstand how to use the method, so you may want to read my article on Nested IRAC, which explains in detail how use IRAC on a law school essay exam. Before any exam, you need to practice using IRAC. In addition to taking law school exams, incorporate IRAC into your daily class preparation by using the FIRAC Case Briefing Method.

Nested IRAC

Most students know about the IRAC method, but few know about Nested IRAC. The IRAC method is where you identify the issue, state the rule, provide some analysis, and then state the conclusion. But nested IRAC involves creating a separate IRAC for each issue and sub-issue on the exam.

Battery Example

Let me demonstrate this through a tortious battery example. If you don’t recall the elements to battery, you may want to watch my video on battery first.

Derek and John are in the same high school math class. One morning, Derek decides it will be funny to pull out John’s chair just as John is about to sit down. Derek pulls out the chair, and John falls on the floor. John is not physically hurt, but he is extremely embarrassed. Fully discuss which, if any, intentional tort Derek committed.

Now, let’s look at the type of answer I get from my first-year law students:

Typical First Year Law Student Answer

The issue is whether Derek committed a battery against John. Battery is the intentional contact of another in a harmful or offensive manner. Intent is when there is the desire or knowledge to a substantial certainty that the contact will occur. The contact must be direct or indirect. The contact must result in harm or offence. Derek desired to cause John to fall, because he went to John’s chair, waited till he sat down, and then pulled out the chair. Though Derek did not touch John, he knew that by pulling out the chair, John would fall on his rear, causing it to contact the ground. Also, though John was not hurt, a person in high school would be offended by being embarrassed by falling on his rear in front of other students. For these reasons, Derek committed a battery.

Problems

Did you notice that this answer does use IRAC and correctly defines battery and each of the three elements? Unfortunately, it does so in a way that leaves the reader confused. This student expects the reader to connect the intent rule in the third sentence with the analysis in the sixth sentence.

Now there are some problems with this approach. First, by putting everything into one giant paragraph, you might miss something important. Second, the person grading the exam might not understand that those two sentences go together. Think of your exam as a jigsaw puzzle. Put pieces together that connect to each other, not three rows apart from each other. Third, your answer will look much more professional with a better organization style, which can make the difference between getting a B or an A on the exam.

Nested IRAC Example

Now, let’s look at nested IRAC. On an exam, every time you have a different concept, even if it’s connected to one concept, you should IRAC that concept in its own paragraph.

Going back to our battery example, you should start with a short introductory paragraph that provides the issue, rule, and then a short conclusion for battery as a whole. You then need additional paragraphs for the sub-issues, or elements as they are called. For battery, that means three more paragraphs: one for intent, contact, and harmful or offensive.

The second paragraph then begins with the issue for that paragraph: The first issue is whether Derek had the intent to commit a battery against John. You then provide the rule, analysis, and conclusion for that issue.

Next, do the same thing for the remaining two elements, leaving you with four paragraphs for this battery essay.

Results

When you use this method, you will write stronger answers because you are less likely to miss an issue. For example, in one large paragraph, you might forget the analysis because it’s hidden in a jumbled mess. But with a nested IRAC, as soon as you notice that your paragraph has only two sentences you’ll know there is a problem. So begin practicing now, and consider using the prewriting essay method I discussed in an earlier episode.

If you’re still not convinced, here is a comprehensive discussion on the benefits and dangers of using the IRAC method.