To repeat, as a legal writer, you will be presented with a number of facts and you will need to answer legal questions about them in a predictive or persuasive voice (unless your job is to draft laws, a will, or an agreement that includes another set of writings, includes analytical and planning skills that go beyond the scope of that discussion). As a law student, you are sometimes asked to write something that addresses a narrow range of problems (for example. B a short memo); Sometimes you`ll be asked to identify any legal issues you can and then resolve them (for example. B an answer to some kind of examination question). Larger legal issues can usually be broken down into a series of smaller problems, allowing you to undo each component sub-question one by one, create “RAIC,” get rid of it, and then focus all your attention on the next sub-question. If you unmount the sub-questions, you need to define and organize them in such a way that they cover all the relevant legal rules and allow the reader to follow them easily. A good legal analysis of a set of facts is usually structured as a series of RAIC entities (or CRRACC). Another common mistake is to close something without having a basis of opinion. In other words, students will recognize the problem, specify a rule, and then draw a conclusion without performing the analysis. Make sure that every position you take has a solid foundation in the analysis.
Remember that the position you take is always whether the rule applies or not. Analyzing your RAIC is usually the hardest part because it requires the author to be precise, and the style is often inconsistent. It is important to know the grammar and style rules established by your boss or professor to write a RAIC that will pass the inspection. . or simply to make a close appeal and determine whether it is decided by the court of experts or whether it is a point of law that must be decided by the judge. The “Conclusions” section of an RAIC directly answers the question presented in the RAIC thematic section. For RAIC methodology, it is important that the conclusion portion of the RAIC does not introduce new rules or analyses. This section explains the problem again and provides the final answer. Conclusion is an important process in which final appeals are divided between previous cases and redefined by the judge. -> How does the Court`s case-law change the rule of law? This analysis shows how careful you should be about the wording of a rule. The words “impossible” indicate that a remote means of being able to conclude the contract means that the rule does not apply. Since Patricia has appealed to the highest court, a final judgment in this case is considered to have been rendered.
She exhausted all possible appeals by going to the highest court that ruled on her case. If she tries to bring the same plea (i.e. the same particular facts and controversies) to a state court, Daniel can argue that the case will be dismissed because of the principle of legal force. The RAIC has many supporters and opponents. The main arguments of proponents of the RAIC methodology are that it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize legal analysis. Since organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning, proponents argue that the RAIC is a very useful tool. For each case you read, extract the rule of law by breaking it down into its components. In other words, ask the question: what elements of the rule must be proven for the rule to be true? The biggest mistake people make when writing exams is to recognize the problem and simply recite the rule without doing the analysis. Most professors know that you can consult the law, but they want to check if you can apply the law to a certain set of circumstances. Analysis is the most important element of the RAIC because it is where real thinking takes place.
“From the analysis, we come to a conclusion as to whether the rule applies to the facts.” If a rule doesn`t apply, you don`t fall into the trap of being conclusive about a party`s responsibility or innocence. There may be another rule that the party should be tried. In other words, you should conclude whether the rule applies, but you should not be conclusive as to whether a different outcome is likely. In this case, you need to establish another rule and reanalyze the facts. The problem mechanically determines which rule is applied. The following articles have been developed to break down the components of the RAIC method and introduce new concepts that can make the RAIC even better. The conclusion is the shortest part of the equation. It can be a simple “yes” or a “no” that the rule applies to a set of facts.
An intelligent teacher will often give you a set of facts that could go both ways to see how well you are analyzing a difficult problem. The mistake many students make is to never take a stand on a topic in one way or another. Most professors want you to take a stand and support yourself to see how well you analyze. This important area is really relatively simple. For each relevant fact, you need to ask yourself if the fact helps prove or disprove the rule. If a rule requires that a certain circumstance exist for the rule to be applied, the absence of that rule will help you conclude that the rule does not apply. For example, all contracts for the sale of goods over $500 must be in writing. Therefore, when analyzing a contract for the sale of goods, you apply the presence or absence of two facts – the value of the good and whether there is a written contract – to see if the rule applies.
So many students use – and abuse – the RAIC method. The RAIC, as you may know, is a method of answering exam questions. It means Question, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion. The RAIC`s idea is for students to go through an exam template, identify as many problems as possible, specify the rules of the law, apply the law to the facts, and then come to conclusions. This element constitutes the rule or rules of law applicable in the case under consideration. The facts of a case are at the heart of every stage of the RAIC. From the facts, problems are identified. It is the facts that lead to the identification of the most appropriate rules and the rules that lead to the most useful way of interpreting the facts. Analysis requires the interpretation of facts and rules. The conclusion is a decision based on the application of the rules to the facts for each issue. The key to detecting problems is to recognize which facts raise which problems.
Because of the complexity of the law, eliminating or adding a fact (it.B time of day or if someone has been drinking) can eliminate or add problems in a case, creating a completely different rule of law. The regulations help to carry out a correct legal analysis of the problem in question, using the facts of the case. The “Rules” section should be a legal summary of all rules used in the analysis and is often written in such a way that the information is described in the applicable rules or otherwise condensed analytically. So come to a conclusion. Don`t be too clear (“Pam will definitely win”), but don`t be too ambiguous either (“It depends on what the court decides”). Saying something like “Pam will probably succeed” is enough. Identifying problems per se will not earn you 10,000 points on the exam. If you read the diagram of facts and say in response: “The problems are: if Archer committed an attack and/or battery against Cyril; and if Archer is liable to Pam for negligence” You probably won`t get a very high score for your exam answer. That`s all there is to say: the four parts of the RAIC method are not treated in the same way in terms of evaluation. Opponents of the RAIC can be divided into two categories.
The first category is those who oppose the use of an RAIC because of its strict and cumbersome format. Most of these reviews offer an alternative version of the RAIC such as MIRAT, IDAR, CREAC, TREACC, CRuPAC, ISAAC and ILAC. Each new iteration is intended to address the shortcomings of the RAIC and provide more or less freedom depending on the format. A very good example of such an alternative format is CREAC, which is said to have more clarity and congruence. They argue this on the basis of the repetition of the conclusion at the beginning and at the end, which would leave no doubt about the final answer and give a concordance to the overall argument. It also includes an explanation of the “Rules” section, which helps describe the rules in defining the rules and explaining the rules for clarity. Weilâ is the most important word to use when writing the analysis. The use of the word “weil” forces you to make the connection between the rule and the facts. You will find that you also use the words “as” and “since” they perform the same function as “Issue” refers to this legal case.