How to Write a Law Essay: IRAC Structure and Legal Argument

Law essays have distinctive requirements that set them apart from essays in other subjects. They use a specific citation system (OSCOLA), rely primarily on cases and statutes rather than journal articles, and require a mode of argument that applies legal rules rather than just discussing theory.

Two types of law assessment

Discursive essay (critical analysis): "Critically analyse the extent to which the duty of care in negligence has expanded beyond its original scope." This is a traditional essay — you take a position, support it with case law and academic commentary, and evaluate competing views.

Problem question: "Alice was driving to work when she ran a red light due to looking at her phone. She struck Bob, who was crossing the road. Advise Bob." This requires IRAC — applying law to facts, not discussing legal principles abstractly.

This guide focuses primarily on the discursive essay, but explains IRAC for problem questions.

The discursive law essay

Structure

Law essays follow the same argumentative essay structure as other disciplines but with subject-specific content:

Introduction:

• Identify the legal question or debate
• State your thesis — your specific position on the question
• Signal the argument's structure

Body paragraphs:

• Each paragraph develops one aspect of the legal argument
• Primary sources: cases and statutes
• Secondary sources: academic commentary, Law Commission reports
• Apply cases to the question, not just describe them

Conclusion:

• Synthesise the argument
• State what the analysis reveals about the law's current state
• Note any reform implications or open questions

Using cases effectively

Cases are the primary evidence in legal essays. Three things every case usage requires:

1. Identify the principle: What rule or principle does this case establish?
2. Apply it to your argument: How does this principle support your sub-claim?
3. Note subsequent development: Has this case been followed, distinguished, overruled, or qualified?

Weak case usage:

"Caparo v Dickman [1990] established a three-stage test for duty of care."

Strong case usage:

"Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] AC 605 fundamentally restructured the law on duty of care by rejecting Lord Wilberforce's expansive two-stage test in Anns and replacing it with a three-stage framework: foreseeability, proximity, and whether it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. The significance for economic loss is that it introduced explicit judicial policy discretion into what had appeared to be a doctrinal question — effectively acknowledging that duty of care is not merely a matter of factual analysis but of normative judgment about the appropriate scope of liability."

Engaging with legal debate

Like history essays, strong law essays engage with scholarly debate about the law — not just describing what the law is but analysing why it is so, whether it should be so, and what it reveals about underlying legal principles.

Common sources for academic commentary:

• Law journal articles (LQR, MLR, OJLS, CLJ)
• Law Commission reports
• Government consultation documents
• Leading textbooks (used for doctrinal summary, not as primary argument)

Citing academic commentary:

"Stapleton has argued that the incremental approach post-Caparo is 'intellectually dishonest' because it allows courts to reach policy-driven conclusions while maintaining the appearance of doctrinal reasoning (Stapleton, 'Duty of Care: A Response to Murphy' (1998) 18 LS 1)."

IRAC for problem questions

IRAC is the analytical structure for advising on the legal position in a factual scenario.

Issue

Identify the precise legal question raised by the facts. Not "Bob may have a claim" but "The issue is whether Alice owes Bob a duty of care in negligence under the Caparo test, and whether her breach of that duty caused his injuries."

Rule

State the relevant legal rule from the most authoritative source:

"To establish negligence, a claimant must demonstrate: (1) the defendant owed them a duty of care; (2) the defendant breached that duty; and (3) the breach caused the damage (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562; Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] AC 605). A duty of care in road traffic accidents is well-established: drivers owe a duty of care to road users (Glasgow Corporation v Muir [1943])."

Application

Apply the rule to the specific facts. This is the analytical core:

"Alice's duty of care to road users as a driver is clear. The question is breach: the standard is the reasonable driver (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856)). Looking at one's phone while driving violates the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.41D and falls below the standard of the reasonable driver — indeed, it is objectively unreasonable by the standard of any driver. Causation is straightforward: but for Alice's phone use and the red light violation, she would not have struck Bob (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969])."

Conclusion

A clear, direct conclusion:

"Bob is likely to succeed in a claim in negligence against Alice. The duty is established, the breach is clear given the statutory violation, and the causation follows directly from the facts."

OSCOLA referencing

Law uses OSCOLA, not Harvard or APA. Key rules:

• Cases: Party v Party [Year] LR Abbreviation Page in footnotes, with full entry in the Table of Cases
• Statutes: Act Name Year in italics
• Journal articles: Author, 'Title' (Year) Volume Abbreviation FirstPage, Pinpoint in footnotes
• No parenthetical in-text citations — all citations in footnotes

For full OSCOLA guidance, see the OSCOLA Referencing Guide. For citation formatting, use the Citation Reference Formatter.