CRARC stands for Conclusion, Rule, Application, Rebuttal and Refutation, and Conclusion. A great lawyer uses CRARC as a roadmap to structure an argument section when drafting a persuasive trial or appellate brief.
The Meaning of CRARC
“C”: Conclusion.
The Conclusion section is a succinct summary of your main argument on an issue and why you should win.
This first “C” is a conclusion about how the court should deal with your legal issue.
The initial conclusion is your initial and most valuable opportunity to persuade the reader why you should win. This is what distinguishes CRARC from IRAC or IRARC. With the latter two, unlike with CRARC, you begin with a neutral restatement of an issue.
The Conclusion section shouldn’t be a blanket restatement of your point, sub-point, or sub-sub-point heading. Restatements waste an opportunity to persuade. The Conclusion should succinctly summarize the argument you’ll make in the CRARC ahead. It could be more detailed than a heading, but it needn’t be.
In an appellate brief, the first Conclusion answers the question on appeal in your favour. In a trial memorandum, the first Conclusion will state why the court should rule in your favour on the issue in your case.
“R”: Rule.
The Rule section should consist of a statement or series of statements of the constitutional, statutory, or common-law authority you deem binding or persuasive in determining the legal issue. Raise all relevant rules for the first time in the Rule section, not in the Rebuttal and Refutation section.
Whenever possible, limit yourself to three or four rules. Paraphrase the law or quote directly from the law.
State your rules in order from those most favourable to your case to those least favourable to your case under the law. Then cite your strongest authorities first.
Cite relevant statutes or case law after each rule, but do not string-cite to show off your research.
The Rule section can be more than one paragraph; it should be as long as it needs to be to encompass the rule.
Don’t give more rules than the court needs to decide your case. Be brief and concise.
Raise binding authority before you raise persuasive authority. Consider using parenthetical explanations to explain case law.
“A”: Application.
Argue your facts here.
Apply to the facts of the case the rule you identified as relevant. If your rule has a set of elements or factors, then apply them to your facts accordingly.
Even if the rule you’ve enunciated comes from a case that contains dissimilar facts, show how the rationale behind the rule applies in your case.
Don’t simply recite facts in the Application section. The Application section is where law and fact meld. Attach legal significance to the facts of your case. Merely stating, without applying, the facts of precedential cases won’t persuade the reader. Don’t expect the reader to compare the cases with your facts and reach the conclusions you urge.
Your Application contains your factual and legal arguments and should support your conclusion.
Case comparisons are ineffective, except when one case contains facts similar to your case.
In a thesis paragraph, provide only a brief application. You’ll apply the law to the facts in detail in later points and sub-points of the brief.
“R”: Rebuttal and Refutation.
Rebut your adversary’s strongest arguments one at a time and refute them, before moving on to the next rebuttal, with your strongest counter-arguments.
Bolster your credibility by showing the court that you recognize counter-arguments (those that criticise or distinguish the law or facts of a case you cited in the Rule section). Explain why your position is correct despite potential or apparent weaknesses.
Explain why your adversary’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Your first sentence in this section should begin with a statement showing how
- the opponent’s case is unpersuasive for a specific reason,
- your opponent’s use of a case is misplaced for a specific reason, or
- the opposing argument isn’t compelling for a specific reason.
State your opponent’s position neutrally and honestly and then refute that position with facts or law favouring your position.
Don’t repeat rules you already gave in your Rule section.
“C”: Conclusion.
Your final conclusion should conform to the first “C” section and the point heading. But instead of arguing your issues, use the final conclusion to state the relief you seek. This is the narrow conclusion.
Tie the legal issue and your arguments to the relief you seek. The conclusion summarises the applicable sub-point or sub-sub point.
Be specific about how the court should decide your case. In appellate briefs, also state whether the trial court or the intermediate appellate court made a correct or an incorrect decision — whether the appellate court should reverse or affirm the decision.
This shows your reader that every line in between the first and last conclusion of a CRARC proves your first conclusion.
Remember:
CRARC guides you to begin an argument with a persuasive conclusion statement instead of a neutral issue statement. It also directs you to craft a rebuttal that acknowledges the potential weaknesses of a client’s case and pre-emptively refutes the other side’s contentions. Anticipating a rebuttal will give you credibility without undercutting an argument.