Legal Writing Help?

Good day: I'am struggling as well. I have found some excellent book's own legal writing. One of the books entitled legal writing and playing English by Bryan A. Garner, you may be able to pick it up at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or borders, I have found most of the exercises to be great help in my writing. I am told you must practice, and practice some more. I am fortunate to have a good instructor, he is extremely tough. But that makes us stronger if we work at it. I hope this helps you.

Creac Legal Writing

Most schools use IRAC, so I don't know the CREAC acronym. I'm assuming the R is Rule, the A analysis, and the C is conclusion. I'm guessing the E is for the elements of the rule.

Here's rules versus elements and factors. A rule is a template. It says "In this situation, this is the outcome". Example: "anyone who is convicted of a crime is labeled a criminal". The template has one test: "convicted of a crime". And one outcome "labeled a criminal".

Now, for elements, there are multiple parts to the test. All must be satisfied. So, Battery -- "intentional action resulting in harmful or offensive contact". Three elements "intentional action" "resulting in contact" that is "harmful or offensive". All three elements of the rule (template) must be met, or the rule fails. If even one element fails, the entire rule fails.

Factors work similar to elements, but it's not all or nothing. Instead, it's a balancing act. So, you go through the list of factors, and you apply each one as heavily yes, mildly yes, heavily no, mildly no, and neutral. Then you add up all the yes's and all the no's and figure out which way the scale tips. The difference between factors and elements is that factors are not all or nothing. If you only have one that applies, that resolves question. If you have many that apply, they get added together. But you can have a lot of factors that are missing (don't apply) and that doesn't automatically make the rule fail.

As far as the rest of legal writing, follow this basic format.

State the issue or the question that you want to address. State the rule that you are going to apply that answers that question, and if necessary explain why that rule gets used. Then go through the rule, either element by element or factor by factor. Define each one if necessary. Do the analysis, applying your particular facts to the rule. Be specific. Explain why the fact proves or disproves that part of the rule. Then finally sum up whether the rule was met or failed, which is your conclusion. That's your IRAC (or CREAC).

For example, take a case where one person (Dave, the defendant) punches another (Vic, the victim). I'll insert other facts as if they had been set forth in the question. Here's a short essay.

"

The question is whether one person punching another constitutes the common law crime of battery. At common law, battery is defined as the intentional harmful or offensive touching of another. As will be shown, Dave's actions meet all elements of the crime of common law burglary.

The first element is whether the punch was intentional. Battery is a general intent crime, meaning that the defendant only need intend to perform the action, not necessarily to achieve the specific results. In the example, Dave punched Vic. The facts show that Dave was aware that he was punching at the time, and aware that Vic was within arm's reach. That awareness of his actions consitutes intent on Dave's part.

Per the facts, Dave punched Vic, causing Vic to suffer a bloody nose. That indicates physical contact, which satisfies the 'touching' element. The fact that Vic suffered physical injury also meets the "harmful or offensive" element, since a physical injury constitutes harm.

Because Dave acted intentionally, and because his actions resulted in contact/touching that was harmful to Vic, Dave would be found guilty of common law battery.

"

We started with the premise or question, stated the rule, analyzed each element using the facts from the question, and then summarized those findings to support our conclusion. That's how you do a legal essay.

As far as the other common practice for legal writing, it's called the triplet rule. Say you are going to say something. Say it. Then say you said it.

The first two parts -- stating the issue and the broad general rule -- are your introduction. They tell what you are going to say. Then you do the analysis, which is where you actually make your argument based on the elements (or factors) and the facts. Then, you sum up what you just proved. Say what you're going to say. Say it. Then say you said it.

Let me know if you have any further questions. Good luck with law school.

Legal writing is the matters you indexed. What it comes right down to is a few kind of writing so that it will store someones butt if any person else involves courtroom. They are typically very exact. The variety I do is letters for buyers telling them matters like what we're doing and what kind of it could rate. A well instance is the things you signal to shop for a residence, purchase a vehicle, hire an condo... If the things you signal at the condo says you'll be able to have 2 cars within the automobile parking space then you'll be able to have a damaged down vehicle and so they can not tow it. If they do convey that record and they're dependable for any charges.

I'm a fellow 1L, and love my legal writing class. I'm not going to be able to tell you exactly what your professor is looking for, but I'd be glad to help you out. Drop me a line through Yahoo, as this will probably wind up taking a lot more space than is appropriate here.