Free tool · Legal Research and Writing
IRAC Checker: Does Your Legal Analysis Have All Four Parts?
IRAC stands for Issue, Rule, Application (sometimes called Analysis) and Conclusion. A good legal analysis states the question, states the governing rule with its source, applies the rule to the facts element by element, and ends with an answer that has the degree of certainty the analysis supports. Most of the words belong in the application, because that is where the reader learns why the rule produces the result. The most common weaknesses are a missing rule, an application that only repeats the facts, conclusory words such as ‘clearly’, and no recognition of the other side’s argument.
Tool · IRAC Checker
All four parts of IRAC are present and in order.
Issue: The issue is whether the landlord breached the implied warranty of habitability.
Rule: Under the rule in Hilder v St Peter, a landlord must keep rented premises fit to live in, and a serious defect breaches the warranty.
Application: Here, the heating failed for three weeks in winter, which is a serious defect, unlike the peeling paint in the earlier case.
Application: However, the landlord may argue that he was never told.
Other: The tenant gave written notice, so that argument is weak.
Conclusion: Therefore, the landlord likely breached the warranty.
Good: An issue is stated (a question the analysis answers).
Good: A rule is stated, with source or authority.
Good: The rule is applied to the facts.
Good: A conclusion is stated.
Good: The application is at least as long as the rule statement, which is the right balance: most of the analysis should be application.
Good: The parts appear in a sensible order (issue, rule, application, conclusion).
Good: No conclusory intensifiers found.
Good: No first-person opinion in the analysis.
Good: The analysis compares the facts with those of authority (similar to, unlike).
Good: A counterargument or qualification is recognised.
Paste a paragraph or two of legal analysis (use invented facts, not a real client’s). The checker labels each sentence as issue, rule, application or conclusion by looking for the words that usually signal them, then shows what is missing. It reads signal words, not meaning, so it can mislabel a sentence: use it as a prompt to look again at your own draft, not as a grade. Runs in your browser; nothing is stored or sent.
How to use it
- Paste a paragraph or two of analysis, written on invented facts.
- Read the label on each sentence: issue, rule, application, conclusion.
- Look at the list of what is missing or out of balance.
- Revise your draft, then paste it again.
Common questions
Is IRAC the only way to organise legal analysis?
No. Variants such as CREAC and CRAC put the conclusion first, which busy readers prefer, and some courts and teachers use other labels. The common thread is a stated rule, applied to specific facts, leading to a conclusion.
Why is the application the longest part?
The reader usually knows the rule or can look it up. What they need from you is the reasoning that connects it to these facts, which is where the analysis can be persuasive or wrong.
Does the checker understand my argument?
No. It reads signal words such as ‘whether’, ‘under’ and ‘therefore’, so it can mislabel a sentence. Treat it as a prompt to look again, not as a grade.
Learn the law behind the tool
This tool is part of our Legal Research and Writing course, with lectures, concept maps, flashcards, interactive exercises and a capstone case. Legal Research and Writing: Predictive Writing.
More free law tools
General information, simplified, mainly on American law, not legal advice. States and countries differ, and real cases turn on facts that a tool cannot capture.