An IRAC memo example is the quickest way to see how the four-part framework actually looks on the page: Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion, each doing a distinct job. Below is a complete sample memo built around a simple battery claim, followed by the writing habits that make each section work and the mistakes that undermine otherwise sound analysis.
What Each Letter Does
IRAC stands for Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion. The Issue is the specific legal question your memo answers, framed as a narrow, fact-specific question. The Rule is the governing legal standard drawn from statutes, case law, or both. The Application is the analysis connecting the rule to the facts of your case, including counter-arguments. The Conclusion is your prediction of how a court would likely resolve the issue.
The power of the framework is its simplicity. It prevents the most common problem in legal writing: jumping straight from facts to a conclusion without showing the analytical work in between. Any legal question can be broken into these four stages. For multi-issue problems, you run a separate IRAC pass for each issue.
A Complete IRAC Memo Example
The scenario below is intentionally straightforward so the structure stays visible.
TO: Senior Partner
FROM: Associate
DATE: March 15, 2026
RE: Liability for Battery in Jones v. Smith
Question Presented
Whether Smith committed battery when he struck Jones in the arm with a briefcase during a business meeting after a disagreement over contract terms.
Brief Answer
Yes. Smith likely committed battery because his deliberate swing of the briefcase at Jones satisfies all three elements of the tort: intent to cause contact, actual harmful or offensive contact, and resulting physical harm. Witness testimony and medical records support each element.
Statement of Facts
On February 10, 2026, David Smith and Michael Jones attended a meeting at Smith’s office to negotiate terms of a supply contract. During the meeting, the parties disagreed over pricing terms, and the discussion became heated. Smith picked up his leather briefcase from the conference table and swung it at Jones, striking him in the left arm. Two other attendees witnessed the contact. Jones sustained a visible bruise and sought medical treatment the following day, incurring a $450 medical bill. Jones now seeks to recover damages for the injury.
Discussion
Issue. The issue is whether Smith committed battery when he struck Jones with a briefcase during a business meeting following a contract dispute.
Rule. Battery is an intentional tort requiring three elements: (1) the defendant acted with intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with another person, (2) harmful or offensive contact occurred, and (3) the plaintiff suffered damages as a result. Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the defendant must have intended to cause the contact or acted with substantial certainty that the contact would result. The standard focuses on whether the defendant meant to bring about the physical contact, not whether the defendant intended to cause a lasting injury. An object held or wielded by the defendant, such as a briefcase, qualifies as an extension of the person for purposes of this analysis.
Application. Smith’s conduct satisfies the intent element. He picked up the briefcase from the table and directed a swinging motion toward Jones during a heated exchange. Two witnesses confirmed the deliberate nature of the movement. A person who swings a heavy object at another person from close range has, at a minimum, substantial certainty that contact will result. Smith may argue the gesture was reflexive or intended to emphasize a point rather than to strike Jones. However, the physical act of lifting an object and directing it at another person’s body goes beyond conversational gesturing, and the force of the contact, which produced a visible bruise, undermines any claim that the motion was incidental.
The contact element is also satisfied. The briefcase struck Jones in the arm, which constitutes direct physical contact. A reasonable person would find being hit with a briefcase offensive regardless of the setting, and the contact here caused actual physical harm, removing any ambiguity about whether the threshold is met.
Finally, Jones suffered measurable damages. He sustained a bruise requiring medical attention and incurred a $450 medical expense. These out-of-pocket costs, along with any claim for pain from the injury, provide a basis for compensatory damages.
Conclusion. Smith is likely liable for battery. His deliberate act of swinging the briefcase at Jones satisfies the intent requirement. The resulting contact was both harmful and offensive, and Jones has documented damages in the form of medical expenses. A court would likely find in Jones’s favor on all three elements of the claim.
How to Write the Issue
The issue is a focused question that combines the legal standard with the specific facts at hand. A vague issue produces a vague analysis. Compare “Did the defendant commit battery?” with “Whether Smith committed battery when he struck Jones with a briefcase during a business meeting after a contract dispute.” The second version tells the reader exactly what happened and what legal question it raises.
Keep issues to one sentence. If you can’t state the issue in one sentence, you may be packing multiple legal questions into a single IRAC pass, and they should be split apart.
How to Write the Rule
State the rule in the abstract without mentioning the facts of your case. The rule section should read like a self-contained explanation of the law that could apply to anyone’s situation. For straightforward rules, a single paragraph works. For complex or multi-element rules, break the section into sub-rules. If a battery claim requires intent, contact, and harm, lay out the standard for each element separately.
When multiple cases contribute different pieces of the governing standard, synthesize them into a single coherent rule rather than listing cases one at a time. A case-by-case summary makes the reader do the synthesis work, and that’s your job.
Strong rule sections also explain how courts have interpreted ambiguous terms. If “offensive contact” is a key element, don’t just state the phrase. Explain how courts have defined it, ideally by synthesizing holdings from relevant precedent. Thin rule sections are a frequent reason an otherwise careful analysis falls apart in the application.
How to Write the Application
The application is the heart of the memo. Match each element of the rule to specific facts, and explain why the element is or isn’t satisfied. The most common failure here is restating facts and then asserting a conclusion without showing the analytical link.
Compare a conclusory version — “Smith swung his briefcase at Jones. Therefore, the intent element is satisfied.” — with an analytical one: “Smith’s deliberate swinging motion toward Jones, immediately following a heated disagreement, indicates he intended to make contact. The physical act of directing a heavy object at another person’s body at close range leaves little room for accidental interpretation, which satisfies the intent requirement.”
The analytical version explains why the facts meet the legal standard. That “why” is what separates a passing analysis from a failing one. Walk through each element methodically. Where relevant, draw analogies to prior cases: if the facts of a precedent resemble yours, explain the similarities; if they differ, explain whether the difference matters.
Counter-Analysis: The Step Most Writers Skip
Strong applications address the opposing side’s best arguments. Skipping this step is the single most common weakness in student and junior-associate writing. After explaining why the facts support your conclusion, acknowledge the strongest argument against it and explain why it falls short.
In the battery example, a counter-analysis addresses Smith’s likely defense: that the briefcase swing was a reflexive gesture during an animated conversation, not an intentional strike. You then explain why the evidence, including witness testimony and the force of the contact, undermines that interpretation. Counter-analysis doesn’t weaken your memo. It strengthens it by showing you’ve considered the full picture. An objective memo that ignores unfavorable facts is worse than useless to a supervising attorney because it creates a false sense of confidence.
How to Write the Conclusion
The conclusion directly answers the question posed in the issue section. Keep it short, definitive, and consistent with the analysis. Don’t introduce new facts, new legal standards, or new arguments. If your application was thorough, the conclusion should feel inevitable. A sentence or two is usually enough for a single-issue memo. For multi-issue problems, briefly summarize the outcome of each issue and state the overall prediction.
Common Mistakes That Weaken an IRAC Memo
Stating the rule too broadly. A rule section that says “battery is when someone hits another person” misses the precise elements a court actually evaluates. If the rule has three elements, name all three and define each one using the governing authority.
Writing a conclusory application. The writer recites the facts, then jumps to “therefore, the element is satisfied” without explaining the reasoning connecting the two. Every element needs its own analytical paragraph.
Ignoring unfavorable facts. In an objective memo, pretending a bad fact doesn’t exist destroys the document’s usefulness. Address it in your counter-analysis and explain why it doesn’t change the outcome, or why it does. An adversary will find the gap even if your reader doesn’t.
Mixing the rule and application sections. The rule section describes the law in the abstract; the application applies it to your facts. Mentioning your client’s specific conduct in the rule section signals a lack of structural discipline and confuses the reader about which standard is general law and which is case-specific analysis.
Introducing new law in the conclusion. If you find yourself adding a new legal theory or case in the conclusion, that material belongs in the rule and application sections instead.
Objective Memo vs. Persuasive Brief
Before you write, know which document you’re producing, because the tone changes everything. An objective office memorandum predicts how a court would likely rule. It’s written for a supervising attorney who needs an honest assessment of the client’s position, strengths and weaknesses included. A persuasive brief argues for a specific outcome and is filed with a court.
Both use IRAC-style organization, but the voice differs. In an objective memo, you present both sides evenhandedly and use neutral language: “A court would likely find…” rather than “The defendant clearly violated…” If a case undermines your client’s position, you address it head-on rather than burying it. In a persuasive brief, you lead with your strongest arguments and frame facts favorably for your client. The sample above is an objective memo; shifting it toward advocacy would mean reordering, re-framing, and tightening word choice without changing the four-part skeleton.
CREAC and CRAC
IRAC isn’t the only organizational method, and your law school or firm may require a variation.
CREAC stands for Conclusion, Rule, Explanation, Application, Conclusion. It opens with the conclusion rather than the issue, giving the reader the bottom line before the analysis. It also splits what IRAC treats as a single rule section into two parts: the Rule, which states the legal standard, and the Explanation, which shows how courts have applied that standard in prior cases. The split forces the writer to illustrate the rule with precedent rather than stating it in the abstract.
CRAC stands for Conclusion, Rule, Application, Conclusion. Like CREAC, it leads with the conclusion. Unlike CREAC, it doesn’t break out a separate explanation section, keeping the structure closer to IRAC’s simplicity while still front-loading the answer. Many practitioners use CRAC for shorter, single-issue analyses.
The underlying analytical work is identical across all three. If you can write a strong IRAC memo, converting it to CREAC means adding a rule explanation section with case illustrations and moving the conclusion to the top. The skills transfer directly.