Business Law

IRAC writing -special topic

The most important thing for IRAC writing is to train the way you reason. The most important thing for an argument is to prove that what you are arguing for is correct no matter whether it is actually correct. IRAC thinking is a kind of advocatory argument. What is the most important thing for such an argument? It is the point you want to argue for. Of course, you may have multiple points to argue for. But you need to do it one by one. So, we have the principle of one issue one argument. The only option that you have two or more questions in your issue is that the consequent ones are interpretations of the first one. But be careful. The interpretation may do harm to your issue if your interpretation is misleading.

Note: issue is not a statement of the problem. It is a statement of “A” “LEGAL” question. Let’s do this. Look at the rubric for IRAC writing for the issue part.

Issue The Issue section identifies the problem question and clearly describes the legal problem(s) that need to be addressed

The relevant area of law is not identified.

The area of law is correctly identified but the statement does not clearly describe the legal problem(s) that need to be addressed.

The area of law and the legal problem(s) to be addressed are identified but the description of the problem(s) are not clear or are incomplete.

The area of law and the legal problem(s) to be addressed are identified and clearly and completely described

Notice to the red words in the first column, Issue is a question, a legal problem (if you do not work as an attorney, it is a professional problem), and a problem you want to address. Yes, you can have problem(s). But it makes your thinking and writing complex. In fact, you need to deal with the problems one by one by repeating the analysis/application. At this stage, we emphasize ONE question. You should not go to more than one question until you have mastered the one question writing.

Here is a link about how to write IRAC. https://www.tourolaw.edu/ADP/StudySkills/IRAC.aspx

Note: The legal question is a blend of rule and the facts particular to the problem. This is to tell you that issue is a legal question, the question includes rule and fact, and the rule and fact is particular to the problem.

You do not need to know enough law for our writing. It is enough to know the rules/laws provided in the assignment.

The instruction on the webpage says: “ identify and state the legal conclusion you want the court to reach.” In the business world, it can be restated as “identify and state the legal conclusion you want your audience to reach.” You want your opinion to be accepted, supported, and adopted no matter it is by your boss, you department manager, or your supervisor. IRAC is the art of persuasion.

In our case, Henry vs. Virtual Company, you need first to know what you are going to argue for based on the facts given and the stand you have.

For example, you are going to argue for Henry. Then, where will you want to reach? You want to argue that the company should not deduct Henry’s pay. How could you reach your conclusion? The answer is that you find that either Henry did not violate the company policy, or the policy is illegal or improper.

Will the rules support your argument? It depends on whether the rules can be applied to the facts. In fact, facts and rules are almost always ambiguous. What you need to do is to select the fact that the rules can be applied to, and the rules that can be applied to the facts. This is rule and fact identification.

What does this mean in our writing? It means that you need to identify the facts in the facts provided to you in the assignment that is relevant to your issue and can intrigue the application of the rules provided to you in the assignment.

Why do I repeat “in the assignment”? It is because we are not law school students. You need not to go to laws. The purpose of this assignment to train you way of thinking rather than to have you know more laws.

Let’s go back to the case, what are the rules? The rules available are the seven tests of just cause. Then, what are the details of the seven tests? We find that they are 1) forewarning; 2) whether the rules of the employer are reasonably related to … operation of the business; 3) whether there is a survey of the violation; 4) whether the survey is fair and objective? 5) substantial evidence; 6) discriminatory application of rules; 7) whether the violation is serious.

Note: do not suppose that your audience know the rules, you need to briefly introduce the rule to your audience.

We now need to compare the tests with the facts.

1) is there a forewarning? Yes, supported by the fact that Employee’s Handbook has policy for this.

2) Is the policy reasonable? We do not know from the fact.

3) is there a survey? Dependent, it depends on how you view the warnings by the manager.

4) whether the survey is fair and objective? Dependent

5) substantial evidence? Depends

6) discriminatory application of rules? Not available

7) whether the violation is serious? We cannot answer based on the facts given.

Does the “seven tests” say that all of the seven tests must be satisfied to constitute a just cause? No.

Now we can form our issue,

Whether the Virtual Company has a just cause to dock pay of Henry based on the fact that he was found browsing his smartphone during working time according to the just cause tests for employment discipline?

“Whether the Virtual Company has a just cause to dock the pay of Henry” is the legal question. “That he was found browsing his smartphone during the working time” is the fact. “The just cause tests for employment discipline” is the rule that you want the court to adopt.”

You can state the issue in many ways. But the structure should be the same.

With this issue, you know which fact to state in you Fact section.

Note: I find most of you do not know how to put the fact in a report with IRAC. I require that you have a Fact section before Issue section in your writing. You need to follow the format to make your writing clearer.

Now, you can write your fact like this.

Virtual Company docked Henry’s pay in implementing the company’s policy of no social media policy because he watched smartphone during working time. The company had an Employee’s Handbook delivered to Henry. In that handbook, it states that browsing social media on smartphone during working time will result in reduced paycheck. Henry was found on smartphone twice by passing-by manager who knocked at Henry’s working cubicle when he found that Henry was on his smartphone. The manager made no further action and Henry got a docked paycheck.

The statement of facts is relevant to the rules you want to apply to them.

1) is there a forewarning? There is a handbook.

2) Is the policy reasonable? We do not know from the fact. So, no fact.

3) is there a survey? Dependent, it depends on how you view the warnings by the manager. You can argue whether knocking on the cubicle is a survey. The fact related is Henry was found on smartphone twice by a passing-by manager who knocked at Henry’s working cubicle when he found that Henry was on his smartphone

4) whether the survey is fair and objective? Dependent. Henry was found on smartphone twice by passing-by manager who knocked at Henry’s working cubicle when he found that Henry was on his smartphone. The manager made no further action.

5) substantial evidence? Depends, Henry was found on smartphone twice by passing-by manager who knocked at Henry’s working cubicle when he found that Henry was on his smartphone. The manager made no further action.

6) discriminatory application of rules? Not available. No fact.

7) whether the violation is serious? We cannot answer based on the facts given. No fact.

Each piece of fact should correspond to a point of rule that you will apply to it for your argument. There are no facts for tests 2),6), and 7). That means that they will not be emphasized in the analysis. Just a sentence that states that there is no fact for the application of those tests is enough.

Now, you got your relevant fact, Issue, and Rule. The Analysis part just applies the rules to the facts piece by piece.

Note: it is not a good practice to just make item checking in this section.

The conclusion is to briefly summarize the application of facts and draw a conclusion.

Hope this helps.