The Small-Scale Paradigm

• Author: Edwin Scott Fruehwald
• Profession: Law Professor at the University of Alabama
• Pages: 129-151

Chapter Goals

I started the last chapter with a chart of the levels of organization of a book.

Among these levels were sections, subsections, sub-subsections, and sub-sub-

subsections. Lawyers usually organize these parts in the argument sections

of briefs to the court or the discussion section of an objective memoran-

dum using a small-scale paradigm. This chapter will present a small-scale

paradigm that you can use in these parts.

Small-Scale Paradigm Dened

A small-scale paradigm is the basic unit of organization of a legal analysis

or argument. It is how one organizes a single issue with no subissues or how

one organizes a subissue or sub-subissue.1 In other words, an argument or

discussion section will usually contain several small-scale paradigms.

The basic structure of a small-scale paradigm is based on how a writer

should organize a simple legal analysis or argument: issue, law, analysis

(application of the law to the facts), and conclusion. This organization is

necessary because the reader needs to know what the law is before he or

she can understand how the law applies to the facts of the case. In other

1. I will demonstrate how the small-scale paradigm ts within medium- and large-scale orga-

nization in the next chapter.

129

Chapter 7

The Small-Scale Paradigm

Fruehwald_ABAP_LegWriting_20141016_14-18_confirmation pass.indd 129 10/30/14 4:17 PM

words, this is the most logical way to present a legal argument or analysis.

This general structure is the basis of the small-scale paradigm you learned

in law school, such as IRAC (issue, rule, analysis, conclusion).

I have based my small-scale paradigm on the above general structure.

It mainly differs from other small-scale paradigms in that it goes into

more detail and begins with the conclusion. My small-scale paradigm is

as follows:2

Small-Scale Paradigm Outline

Conclusion

Law: Rule

Rule Explanation

Rule Illustration(s)

Application: Apply the Principles (Rule Application)

Case Comparison(s)

Conclusion

The paradigm begins with a one-sentence conclusion for clarity. I have put

the conclusion rst because it is easier for a reader to understand the analy-

sis when he knows what the conclusion is. (The issue, of course, is part of

the conclusion in my paradigm.) For example, a conclusion might be, “The

1954 Act is unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause because the

act’s purpose was to advance religion.”

2. I have synthesized this paradigm from a number of sources, including Richard K. Neu-

mann, Jr., Legal Reasoning and Legal Writing: Structure, Strategy, and Style, 97–143 (Aspen

Pub., 5th ed. 2005); Helene S. Shapo, Marilyn R. Walter, & Elizabeth Fajans, Writing and

Analysis in the Law, 113–29 (Foundation Press, Rev. 4th ed. 2003); and Linda Edwards, Legal

Writing and Analysis, 89–108 (Little, Brown and Co., 2003). I have given the details of the

theoretical basis of this paradigm in E. Scott Fruehwald, Think Like a Lawyer: Legal Reason-

ing for Lawyers and Business Professionals, 164–65 (ABA Pub., 2013). You do not need to

understand the theoretical basis of the small-scale paradigm to use it.

CHAPTER 7130

Fruehwald_ABAP_LegWriting_20141016_14-18_confirmation pass.indd 130 10/30/14 4:17 PM