The legal world gives significant importance to the ‘think like a lawyer’ perspective, a mindset that is often nurtured and refined over years of law school and professional practice. Legal reasoning, cornerstoned by the “Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion” methodology, better known as IRAC, is often hailed as the orthodox approach to legal argumentation. However, Luke Andrews at Poole Huffman argues that this standard method erroneously frames analysis as a separate, discrete step, leading to disorganization in briefs.
In his recent discussion, Andrews argues that many misconceptions about what it means to “think like a lawyer” originate as early as law school and continue to mislead many attorneys throughout their careers. Alluding to IRAC’s structure, he points out the propensity for disorganization and obfuscation it sometimes engenders when analysis is viewed as a standalone process within the sequence.
Andrews hints at a more straightforward fix to these hitches in legal reasoning, sparking interest among legal professionals to rethink traditional methodologies. By tooling an alternative way of structuring and sequencing legal arguments, we might potentially redefine what it means to “think like a lawyer”.