Does legal writing follow a boring, lifeless, formula? This tweet and the many responses from lawyers, judges, and professors provide some good answers! I'm not sure if @JudgeDillard's original tweet was just about the dreaded "IRAC" formula, but a few words on that... 1/
A while back, Judge Posner (@Posner_Thoughts) wrote a book in which he critiqued IRAC, legal writing profs generally, The Bluebook, and moore. Prof. Dorf (@dorfonlaw) defended the writing profs and IRAC (though not The Bluebook!). I wrote about it here: ziffblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/03/jud… 2/
The short version: IRAC isn't that bad! All it means is that, when making a legal argument, clearly state your point right at the start, then explain the relevant law, then apply the law to your facts. But IRAC says nothing about the best way to explain the law. 3/
IRAC says nothing about how to link together separate law-and-fact arguments in separate IRAC structures. IRAC says nothing about the clearest way to state your point at the start. IRAC says nothing about how to persuasively deal with "bad" cases or "bad" facts. And so on. 4/
Your memo or brief obviously isn't going to be *all* the legal rules on all points before *all* the application on all points. You've got to break it up, flow from point to point, structure it. That takes creative work! So if your legal writing is bad, don't blame IRAC! /fin
