Great Lawyers also use other variants when drafting, for example they may use IRARC when drafting an objective memorandum.
IRARC stands for Issue, Rule, Application, Rebuttal and Refutation, Conclusion.
The difference between CRARC and IRARC is that the former begins with a persuasive conclusion statement and the latter begins with a neutral issue statement.
IRARC is better than IRAC because, like CRARC, it compels you to provide a rebuttal and refutation.
Just like the Rebuttal and Refutation section in CRARC, the rebuttal section in IRARC will help you gain credibility with the reader, and it will help you focus your arguments.
Structuring the Brief
A valuable way to organise a legal argument is to give the reader a roadmap, which CRARC provides. A roadmap serves as a mini-thesis that tells the reader what you’re about to discuss.
Place your roadmap after your thesis and just before each individual CRARC. A roadmap constructed under the CRARC model instantly reveals the overall legal argument, the rule, how the rule applies to a particular set of facts, and the counter-argument, all before the reader begins to read the details of your argument.
Place your Rebuttal and Refutation in the right place in your brief so as not to undercut your argument. The places with the most emphasis in an argument are the beginning and the end, while the place with the least emphasis is the middle. With CRARC, an argument begins and ends with a persuasive conclusion.
The best place for your Rebuttal and Refutation, then, is in the middle of the argument. This section addresses the flaws in your argument and should be the least memorable. If you follow CRARC, you’ll place the Rebuttal and Refutation section in the middle of your argument, between your application and final conclusion.
This way, you show the reader that you understand your opponent’s position but you have good reasons to support your own position.
Use the CRARC model for each issue, and have the courage to limit the number of CRARCs to those issues that have a reasonable likelihood of success. Issues — and, thus, separate CRARCs — consist of individual grounds on which the court might grant the relief you seek if it agrees with you on that issue but disagrees with you on everything else.
Your strongest CRARC, or at least the one that will give you the greatest relief, should be listed first, although threshold arguments like those involving the statute of limitations or jurisdiction always go first. Because you’ll focus on proving your conclusion, using CRARC will help you avoid addressing tangential issues. (Lebovits, ,2010)
