Chapter 4 Legal Logic Every legal argument must do more than “make sense” or “seem right.” Legal arguments must be logically sound. In order to create arguments that are logically sound, you need a grasp of the basics of legal logic. Legal logic is the practice of supporting your claims with reasons that are valid to legal readers. The fundamental structure of legal logic is the Golden Rule of Legal Reasoning, which we describe in the first part of this chapter. The Golden Rule is also the basis of how syllogisms work in legal reasoning, as you will learn in the second and third parts of this chapter. The Golden PAs cc Clg ‘The Golden Rule of Legal Reasoning (the “Golden Rule”) states that, in any legal document that contains a rule (e.g., a law) and an application of that rule to facts, you must first explain the rule before you apply the rule to the facts. Or, to put it more simply: explain before you apply. Never try to do both — explaining and applying —at the same time. As you start writing legal documents, you can ensure that you are following the Golden Rule by drawing a horizontal line across your drafts, dividing the rule above from the application below. Arule is simply any legal precept—e.g., a statute, regulation, or common law rule— anything you might call a “law.” (For more about legal authorities, see Chapter 2, Legal Authorities.) Application occurs when you take that legal precept and apply it to the facts of your case and thereby use the law to reach a legal conclusion about your facts. Legal application is the magic moment of law practice. It is what you will be hired for, be paid for, and feel like a superhero for when you get right. (Chapter 5, Legal Analysis; Chapter 8, Analysis Structure; Chapter 25, Organize an Analysis; and Chapter 26, Write an Analysis, explain in greater detail how to do this.) Because legal logic is so important, we will spend the rest of this chapter describing how it works and how to do it well.36 4. Il. Basic Legal Logic: Syllogisms In order to understand legal reasoning, you need to understand the basics of legal logic. Legal logic uses syllogisms. A syllogism is a method of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two propositions, called “premises.” (In courses on logic you might also learn some other stuff about “shared terms” and “middle terms” and this word “categorical.” but you don't need to know that stuff to do legal logic well.) GAL LOGIC A syllogism has three parts: + Major Premise * Minor Premise + Conclusion Here's a famous example of a syllogism: + Major Premise: All humans are mortals. + Minor Premise: Socrates is human. + Conclusion: Socrates is mortal. Let's break down the parts of the syllogism above: + Major Premise: A rule of general applicability, ie., one that applies to a variety of factual situations. Here: All humans are indeed mortals. + Minor Premise: The description of your particular factual Socrates is a human being. ation. Here: + Conclusion: ‘The conclusion you draw after applying the rule to your particular facts, Here: If you apply the rule that humans are mortals to the specific factual situation of Socrates being human, the conclusion follows directly: Socrates is mortal. Here's another version of the famous example, showing how the same rule of general applicability can be applied to a different factual situation and yield a correct conclusion: + Major Premise: All humans are mortal. + Minor Premise: Bruce Springsteen is human. + Conclusion: Bruce Springsteen is mortal. Many students unfamiliar with syllogisms ask how to tell whether a premise is the “major” premise. To identify the major premise, try applying the premise to a variety of cases and seeing if the logic still holds. If it does, then the premise is a major premise. The major premise is a rule of general applicability. Because the major premise is a rule of general applicability, you could substitute a variety of humans in the case we are examining here: + Major Premise: All humans are mortal. + Minor Premise: Helen Mirren is human. * Conclusion: Helen Mirren is mortal. Syllogisms alone aren’t very useful in legal writing. They are a method of thinking, though, that is very useful, especially when remixed to become the conventional structureoO setckiarrre nein ER be 4» LEGAL LOGIC 37 of legal argument that your audiences will expect you to write. ‘That conventional structure is called C-RAC. Legal readers expect to see the parts of a legal argument in a certain order. That order is quite similar to the order of a syllogism. The parts of a legal argument are these: C: Conclusion R: Rule + A: Application + C: Conclusion Legal writers abbreviate this list of parts as “C-RAC” for short. C-RAC is a rule-based argument structure that reflects both the Golden Rule and the syllogism. Watch: The Golden Rule: “Cc +R: Rule (Explain before you ... ) +A: Application (.... apply!) “Cc And then there’s the syllogism: c +R: Major Premise (rule of general applicability) +A: Minor Pi ise (facts of your particular situation) + Cz Conclusion (conclusion you draw after applying the rule to your particular facts) These comparisons demonstrate that the Golden Rule, syllogisms, and C-RAC are basically all the same thing: a method of legal reasoning. This method ensures that you focus first on the rule at hand, and then on the facts that you will apply the rule to. C- RAC is also a method of reading, one that all legal readers learn, including you. But what about that “C” at the beginning of C-RAC? That doesn’t appear in the Golden Rule or in the syllogism. Why conclude at the beginning? Once you have finished drafting your legal document using the C-RAC method, you will have drawn a conclusion. The last step in drafting is to take your conclusion and put it at the beginning, We know that this is weird, But having the conclusion at the beginning is what legal readers expect. Here's why. Lawyers and judges are impatient. They want to know what argument you are making before you defend that argument so that they can evaluate your argument while they read it. It’s an old saying in legal writing: You are not writing a mystery novel. So don’t keep the outcome a secret from your reader. You might also notice as you study the sample documents in Part 2 of this book that not every C-RAC contains the final C. Sometimes, if a C-RAC is particularly short, or ifFn 38 4» LEGAL LOGIC acronyms. Figure 4.1. Legal Reasoning Comparison Chart ~TREAC the final conclusion is obvious, a writer can use her judgment and leave off the final C. You might also notice that the first C can appear as a heading or subheading, rather than in the paragraph text itself. This is also common practice. Get accustomed to spotting C-RACS in their various manifestations. But, rest assured, they are all C-RACs. You might have heard of other acronyms besides C-RAC to refer to methods of legal reasoning, The table in Figure 4.1 demonstrates the similarities among the different horizontal line: always explain the rule before you apply the rule. and convey solutions to your readers. RAC Golden Rule Syllogism —CREAC TRAC c - Conclusion Issue Topic/Thesis Conclusion R Major Rule Rule Rule Premi Explanation Explanation A Minor ‘Application Application Application therule Premise c Conclusion Conclusion —_Conclu: Conclusion Conclusion [As you can see from the preceding table, these supposedly different methods of legal reasoning simply use different words to describe very similar tasks. Most significantly, those tasks all boil down to the all-important Golden Rule, demonstrated by the dark In the next chapter, you will learn how to use these strategies to analyze legal problemsThe Complete Legal Writer Alexa Z. Chew Katie Rose Guest Pryal ee Carolina Academic Press Durham, North CroinaCopyright © 2016 Carolina Academic Press, All Rights Reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Chew, Alexa Z., author, | Pryal, Katie Rose Guest, author. Title: The complete legal writer / Alexa Z.. Chew and Katie Rose Guest Pryal. Description: Durham, North Carolina : Carolina Academic Press, 2015. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2015038556 | ISBN 9781611638127 (alk. paper) egal composition. | Law--United States--Language. C KF250 .C46 2015 | DL 5008.06/634--de23 LC record available at http://Iccn.loc.gov/ 2015038556 Carolina Academic Press 700 Kent Street Durham, NC 27701 Telephone (919) 489-7486 Fax (919) 493-5668 www.cap-press.com Printed in the United States of America