Write On!

• Publication year: 2024
• Citation: Vol. 47 No. 5 Pg. 46
• Pages: 46

Write On!Vol. 47 No. 5 Pg. 46Wyoming Bar JournalOctober 1, 2024

Michael R. Smith, Judge

Applying Law to Law: Using the IRAC Formula When Applying Rules of Statutory Construction

In a recent edition of this column, I explained the communicative power of the IRAC formula for writing rule-based analysis.^[1] As I explained there:

From the beginning of their legal training, legal writers are taught to use the IRAC formula (or one of its more modern variations) for writing ruled-based analysis. The "I" in IRAC stands for "Issue" and merely a call for the writer to use a transition to the point of analysis. The "R" stands for "Rule" and instructs the writer to state the legal rule relevant to the point under discussion. The "A" and the "C" stand for "Application" and "Conclusion," respectively, and call for the writer to apply the legal rule to the facts of the case at hand and state a conclusion on the point.

The IRAC formula for writing rule-based analysis is popular for two reasons. First, it appropriately highlights the legal rule that guides the analysis. Second, it comports with the way the human brain processes deductive logic.^[2]

Michael R. Smith is a Professor of Law at the University of Wyoming College of Law and the Director of the Center for the Study of Written Advocacy.

Most legal writers understand how to use the IRAC formula for issues that involve explaining how a legal rule applies to the substantive facts of the writer's case. However, some legal writers do not realize that the IRAC formula is also effective in communicating the application of rules of statutory construction in connection with issues of statutory interpretation. The confusion here stems from the fact that rules of statutory construction are not applied to the "facts" of a matter; they are applied to statutes. Nevertheless, the IRAC formula is effective in this context as well.

Consider, for example, the following excerpt from the Colorado Court of Appeals case of Gomez v. Walker.^[3] In this case, Carmelita Gomez sued Ryan Walker for negligence for injuries she allegedly sustained in a car accident that occurred on June 15, 2016.^[4] Ms. Gomez filed her complaint against Mr. Walker on June 17, 2019-three years and two days after the accident.^[5] Mr. Walker moved to dismiss the complaint arguing that it was filed after the applicable three-year statute of limitations period.^[6] Ms. Gomez responded by arguing that "[b]ecause the June 15, 2019...