How do you effectively utilise your time in a 2-hour law exam using the IRAC method?

IRAC stands for the “Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion” structure of legal analysis.

If your professors are nice enough, they’ll give you a suggested timeframe for each
question, or the point values. From there, you can decide how much time each essay ought
to take. If you’re not that lucky, you can likely take an estimate of the relative point values
for each question by looking at it. If you’re still stumped, look at the complexity of each
question and think about how difficult it will be to answer each one. Prioritize the simple
ones that you can effectively answer very quickly and get them out of the way.

To answer a law school essay question using IRAC, here’s what I taught the 1Ls to do:

1. Read the “call of the question,” usually at the end of the fact pattern. Why?
Because you may end up wasting a ton of time on these next steps if you don’t. If
you spend the whole fact pattern looking at intentional torts and get to the
bottom and the exam says “don’t analyze any intentional torts,” you just probably
wasted 2–3 minutes doing these next steps. Is this question about admissibility?
Read it for that. Is this question asking about defenses? Read it like a defense
attorney.
2. Read the question for “triggering facts,” or facts that immediately give rise to
particular issues. A made a promise to B, and B went out and sold his house based
on that promise? That immediately raises an issue. Make a little list of issues near
those facts; highlight the facts in different colors if you can, maybe underline them
and make a line over to the issue note in the margin if you only have a pencil.
3. Make a T chart for every issue you spotted on some scratch paper or over in the
margins. Put the issue name at the top of each one.
4. On the left side of the T, put down every rule statement about that issue you
can think of. You saw promissory estoppel above? List the elements of promissory
estoppel in that left column.
5. On the right side, find a home for every relevant fact that goes along with the
rules on the left. Analysis is about finding a home for all the facts; they’re all there
for a reason. Your professor is not a budding novelist. Those facts are there for you
to use them. Your job is to find a home for every one of them.
6. Quickly make a list of how you’re going to prioritize each issue. That’s your
outline.
7. Now, go through each issue. Give the rules for that issue, if they can be easily
grouped together without just doing a rule dump. If you have a lot of rules, that’s
a sign you didn’t spot the issues well. You’ll be tested on relatively narrow issues.
Go back and narrow those issues a bit if necessary. Then run the facts that you
paired up on your T chart through each rule to generate an outcome.
 8. Add up all those outcomes for each issue, and tell the court (or client, or senior
partner, or whomever the question calls for,) what to do.
9. Marvel at how easy that was. But for no more than 10 seconds, because you have
the rest of the test to do.
Practice this on a few hypos, and it should come easily to you with a bit of practice.

 You have to put on more and more details to make an answer interesting and to
grab good marks
a. For good marks particularly in law subjects you have to mention the
o section/ subsection as coded in the act or law or
o article/ clause as coded in the act or law or
o chapter/part as coded in the act or law &
o definitions & case-laws. (not mere in bookish language)

What are some tips for writing "A" law school exams?

I consistently get the top grades in my law school classes, and I can tell you that you are
correct about it being a writing gap and not a comprehension gap. And as the editor in
chief of my school's law journal, I read, edit, and write a lot -- both student pieces and
expert articles. From these experiences, my advice is to practice explaining detailed legal
analysis.

You obviously have to write clearly and state the rule accurately, but the part no one is good
at is spelling out your reasoning for the reader. The reader is looking at your piece for the
first time, so hold their hand through the analysis. This will make it easy on the reader and
ensure her that you know what you're talking about. That's how your paper distinguishes
itself and gets in the A pile.

Here's an example of actual student test-writing: ''When service is done in person, it must
be hand delivered to the person, or it must be left on the person's residence with someone
who is of competent age and who lives there. Here, service was served on Ethel's next door,
part-time babysitter, and thus service is improper.''

The problem is that the conclusion is perfectly clear to the writer, but the reader is still left
wondering WHY those facts matter to the conclusion. Better: ''Here, service was made on
the babysitter. Even if the babysitter is deemed of competent age, the babysitter lives next
door, not at Ethel's residence. Therefore, because service was not made to Ethel or someone
who lives at Ethel's residence, service is improper.''

Still, analysis about the babysitter's competence would be welcome. She's caring for small
children, after all. That's a lot of responsibility. And she is perhaps an agent of Ethel in
Ethel's short-term absence. And did Ethel actually receive the service? What else can you
draw from the facts?

See how such an ''easy'' question can actually become a closer call with detailed analysis?
This shows the professor that you can use your brain for more than reciting rules followed
by reciting facts. And it shows that you didn't think the professor's fact pattern was too easy.
In effect, compliment the professor on the challenging issues presented! Look for the
difficult way to prove your conclusion, not the easy way. Distinguish your answer by doing
the tough work of detailed legal analysis.

Some practical tips:

1. Think ''because...?'' after every conclusion you make. When you type a period, delete it
and keep going to better explain why, even though you are absolutely sure you just did.
Hold the reader's hand.

2. Argue the non-obvious conclusion. Like in the babysitter example above, even if you
come out with the easy conclusion you originally decided on, show why it's not as close of a
call as you first thought. If I think a question is easy, I argue for the other side instead. I've
never gotten a B for doing that hard work.

3. Practice exam-taking and writing out legal analyses. You know the law just as well as
those in your study group, so get an edge by going into the exam already prepared for how
to organize an essay on a given topic. Also, study according to that organization, rather than
topically. Do everything you can to maximize those three short hours :)

4. Be confident in yourself! This goes a long way during the test.