IRAC and ILAC: Structuring Legal Problem Questions
The method that turns a messy legal scenario into a marks-winning answer, Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion, with worked structure and common errors.
Law problem questions hand you a fact scenario and ask what the legal position is. Weak answers recite everything known about the topic. Strong answers apply the law to these facts through a disciplined structure. IRAC, Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion (ILAC adds an explicit Law step), is that structure.
Issue
Identify the precise legal questions the facts raise, one at a time. Not "this is about contract law" but "Is there a valid offer capable of acceptance?" and "Was consideration provided?" Each distinct issue gets its own IRAC cycle. Spotting the right issues is itself heavily marked, miss an issue and you lose all the marks beneath it.
Rule
State the relevant legal rule with authority: the statute section, the leading case, the principle. Keep it tight, the rule statement establishes the test you will apply, not a lecture on the area. Cite precisely (in OSCOLA where required): the case name, and the principle it stands for.
Application
This is where the marks concentrate and where weak answers collapse. Apply the rule to the specific facts, arguing both sides where the facts are genuinely contestable. "Applying Carlill v Carbonic Smoke Ball Co, the advertisement here may constitute a unilateral offer because it specifies a clear promise on a defined condition. However, unlike Carlill, the wording lacks a deposited fund signalling serious intent, so a court might instead treat it as an invitation to treat." That is application, law meeting facts, arguing the tension.
Conclusion
Reach a reasoned conclusion on each issue. It need not be certain, law rarely is, but it must follow from your application. "On balance, the stronger argument is that a binding contract was formed, though the outcome turns on how a court reads the intention to be bound."
Common Errors
- Rule-dumping: long statements of law with no application to the facts.
- Missing issues: answering the obvious question and ignoring the buried one.
- One-sided application: not arguing the counter-position where facts allow.
- Conclusions that ignore the analysis: asserting an outcome the application did not support.
Checklist
- Have I identified every distinct legal issue?
- Is each rule stated with authority and kept concise?
- Does my application argue the facts both ways where contestable?
- Does each conclusion follow from its application?
- Have I allocated words in proportion to how contestable each issue is?
- Is my authority cited in the form my department requires?
IRAC, ILAC and Their Relatives
The variants differ less than their names suggest. What changes is the emphasis, and which one you use is usually settled by your department rather than by preference.
| Acronym | Stands for | Emphasis |
|---|---|---|
| IRAC | Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion | The standard, taught almost everywhere |
| ILAC | Issue, Law, Application, Conclusion | Common in Australia and New Zealand. "Law" invites fuller treatment of authority |
| CREAC | Conclusion, Rule, Explanation, Application, Conclusion | US legal writing. States the answer first, then proves it |
| MIRAT | Material facts, Issue, Rule, Application, Tentative conclusion | Foregrounds fact selection and the provisionality of the answer |
| ISAAC | Issue, Statute, Authority, Application, Conclusion | Useful where a statute and case law both operate |
Do not agonise over the choice. A well-executed IRAC beats a poorly executed CREAC every time, and examiners are marking legal reasoning rather than acronym compliance.
Where the Marks Actually Sit
Students routinely invert the proportions, writing long rule statements and short applications. The mark scheme almost always rewards the opposite.
| Element | Typical share of the answer | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Issue | 5 to 10 per cent | One or two sentences. It frames, it does not argue |
| Rule | 20 to 25 per cent | Only the law you will actually use |
| Application | 50 to 60 per cent | This is the legal reasoning. It is what is being assessed |
| Conclusion | 10 per cent | A clear answer, following from the application |
The diagnostic is blunt. If your rule section is longer than your application, you have written a summary of the topic rather than an answer to the problem. Reciting law the facts never engage is the single most common way to lose marks on a problem question.
Identifying Issues Properly
An issue is a contested legal question arising on these facts, not a topic. "Contract" is a topic. "Whether the display of goods in the shop window constituted an offer or an invitation to treat" is an issue, because it is a question the facts make live and to which the answer could go either way.
Work through the facts systematically. For each party, ask what claim they might bring or defend, and what element of that claim is genuinely in doubt. Elements that are clearly satisfied should be dealt with in a sentence, so that your words go to the elements that are not.
Where there are several issues, deal with them in the order the law requires. Liability precedes remedies. A preliminary question such as whether a duty exists precedes whether it was breached. Answering out of order suggests you are working through your notes rather than through the problem.
Application Is Argument, Not Restatement
The application paragraph is where most answers fall flat. Compare these treatments of the same point.
Weak. The rule in Carlill is that a unilateral offer can be made to the world at large. Here, the advertisement was made to the world at large. Therefore, there was an offer.
Strong. The advertisement resembles Carlill in that it was addressed generally and specified a determinate act. It differs in that the deposit in Carlill evidenced an intention to be bound, whereas here there is no comparable indication of seriousness. A court would therefore weigh the specificity of the promised act against the absence of any commitment device. The better view is that the specificity is sufficient, since the advertisement stated an exact sum and a defined condition, though the point is arguable.
The strong version does three things the weak one does not. It identifies the material similarity and the material difference, it says what the court would weigh, and it reaches a reasoned view while acknowledging the counter-argument.
Arguing Both Ways Without Sitting on the Fence
Examiners want to see that you can construct the opposing argument, then explain why yours is better. That is different from listing both and declining to choose.
A workable pattern: state the stronger argument, state the counter-argument fairly and at its best, identify what turns on the difference, then conclude. Phrases that do this work include "the stronger view is", "this turns on whether", and "unless the court accepts X, the claim will fail". Phrases that do not include "it could be argued either way" as a final sentence.
Where the law is genuinely unsettled, say so and say what a court would probably do. An honest "the authorities conflict, and on the better reading of Smith the claimant succeeds" is a strong answer. A refusal to answer is not.
Common Mistakes and Fixes
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| Rule section longer than application | Cut the law you never use. State only what the facts engage |
| Reciting facts of cited cases at length | Give only the facts that make the analogy or distinction work |
| Concluding without deciding | Reach a view. Uncertainty is expressed through reasoning, not through refusal |
| Discussing every issue at equal length | Weight by contestability. Clear points get a sentence |
| Rules stated with no authority | Every proposition of law needs a case or a section |
| Advising on facts not given | Note the missing fact and say what would follow either way |
| One IRAC for a multi-issue problem | Run a separate cycle per issue, with a heading each |
Jurisdiction Notes
- England and Wales: IRAC is common, and OSCOLA is the usual citation standard. Footnotes rather than in-text citation.
- Australia and New Zealand: ILAC dominates, with AGLC citation in Australia.
- United States: IRAC and CREAC are both taught, with Bluebook citation, and the memo format differs from the essay.
- Scotland: the substantive law differs materially from England and Wales, so check authority applies before relying on it.
- Mixed and civil law systems: code provisions carry the weight that case law does in common law systems, so the rule section is structured differently.
Where Ethical Support Fits
Working through problem structure with a tutor, joining a moot, or asking a study group how they framed an issue is normal legal education. Having an essay proofread for expression and citation format is legitimate too.
What stays yours is the identification of issues and the application of law to facts. That reasoning is the assessed skill, and it is also the skill the profession is testing for, so an answer produced by someone else fails twice over.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should I use headings for each issue?
In most problem questions, yes. Headings make the structure legible and help the marker find each element. Check whether your department discourages them.
Do I need to state the full facts of every case I cite?
No. Give only the facts that carry the analogy. A sentence is usually enough, and long case recitation is a common way to run out of words before the application.
What if I do not know the answer?
Reason from the authority you do know, identify what the answer turns on, and reach a tentative conclusion. Structured reasoning toward the wrong answer scores far better than no reasoning.
Can I use IRAC in an essay question?
Not directly. Essays call for a thesis and sustained argument rather than issue-by-issue analysis. The habit of pairing every proposition with authority still transfers.
How much authority is enough?
Every legal proposition needs support. Beyond that, more cases are not better. Two well-used authorities beat six mentioned in passing.
What if the problem raises a point with no clear authority?
Reason by analogy from the closest cases, consider the underlying principle, and say what a court would likely do. Novel points are often deliberately included to test exactly this.
Your Next Step Today
Take a problem answer you have already written and measure the application section as a share of the whole. If it is under half, cut rule material until it is. That single reallocation usually moves an answer up a band without any new legal knowledge.
Trusted Sources
- University of Oxford Faculty of Law, OSCOLA, the Oxford University Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities. Accessed 11 August 2026.
- Find Case Law, The National Archives, the official free source of UK judgments. Accessed 11 August 2026.
- BAILII, British and Irish Legal Information Institute, free case law and legislation. Accessed 11 August 2026.
- The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, judgments and press summaries. Accessed 11 August 2026.
- legislation.gov.uk, the official UK statute book. Accessed 11 August 2026.
This is general study guidance on essay structure, not legal advice, and authority differs by jurisdiction. Where this guide and your department's guidance differ, follow your department.
Related services
Related guides
- OSCOLA Referencing for Law Students
- How to Write a Legal Case Note
- Statutory Interpretation for Law Essays
- Legal Research Methods: Doctrinal and Empirical
All academic writing guides or browse our academic writing services.