Top Law Schools

I've read a lot of material on legal analysis, and my professor insists that we use the CRExAC (Conclusion, Rule of Law, Explanation of the Rule, Application of facts to the rules, and the Connection-Conclusion) method within our briefs. This professor is extremely picky, so every dispositive point I make must follow with a CRExAC analysis--this will be tedious and whatnot, but those are the rules.

Anyway, I am having a lot of trouble clearly separating the rule and the explanation. Would anyone be able to tell me exactly what should go into the "rule" section and what should be reserved for the "explanation" section? I have a whole bunch of on-point cases, and the issues and whatnot are pretty clear from the quotes. In my memo last semester, I kind of meshed the rule and explanation sections together into a 2-3 paragraph "Rule-Explanation, Rule-Explanation" format. That seems the most intuitive to me, and since I have so many sources, it would be extremely easy to use other on-point sources to explain the contentious one. I'm just not sure what I'm missing in understanding the differences between the two sections.

The Rule is the rule, and the explanation is how the facts from that case lead you to extract the rule. For example:
---
Rule: In order to be enforceable the contract must be signed by both parties.

Explanation: In Engineer v. Prof one of the parties refused to sign the contract. Even though that party read and understood the terms of the contract, because they did not sign it the contract was not enforced.
---
That sort of thing. The Explanation is important because without it you won't be able to figure out how the facts of your current case can be used to fit into the rule.

Does that help?

Action Jackson wrote:The Rule is the rule, and the explanation is how the facts from that case lead you to extract the rule. For example:
---
Rule: In order to be enforceable the contract must be signed by both parties.

Explanation: In Engineer v. Prof one of the parties refused to sign the contract. Even though that party read and understood the terms of the contract, because they did not sign it the contract was not enforced.
---
That sort of thing. The Explanation is important because without it you won't be able to figure out how the facts of your current case can be used to fit into the rule.

Does that help?

Fair enough, but then how does that differ from the application of the facts to the rule?

In the Application section you're applying the facts of the *current* case to the one you're citing. So the full version would be:

---
Rule: In order to be enforceable the contract must be signed by both parties.

Explanation: In Engineer v. Prof the respondent refused to sign the contract. Even though the respondent read and understood the terms of the contract, because they did not sign it the contract was not enforced.

Application: Like the respondent in Engineer, Mr. Client read the contract and understood its terms, but elected not to sign the document. ...
---

Does that make sense?

Ahh okay, I think I've got it now. So, to reiterate, the rule is just the rule of law as stated in legal authority. This should be a pretty dense paragraph or so that just provides a list of the "tools" with which you will be constructing your argument.

The explanation section explains the context surrounding the creation of these tools. For example, you would use the facts of the case to which you're citing to illustrate how this rule should be applied.

Finally, the application section applies the facts in the case at bar to the previously explained case law.

Is that correct?

Yup. You've got it. I would only nitpick and say the Explanation illustrates how the rule was derived, rather than how it should be applied (that basically happens in the Application). End result is probably going to be the same.

CREAC can be done in more than one paragraph as well.

The dirty secret is CREAC=CRAC=IRAC=IREAC.

Awesome, thanks so much! It seems easy now, haha.

engineer, are your professors unavailable for help so you cannot ask them these sort of questions? It seems like an elementary thing to ask, so I'm just wondering if that's how it is in law school.

sayan wrote:engineer, are your professors unavailable for help so you cannot ask them these sort of questions? It seems like an elementary thing to ask, so I'm just wondering if that's how it is in law school.

At 12am they're not available. My professor doesn't have office hours until Wednesday, and I'm not waiting until then to get an answer and in-depth explanation that I got on here inside of 10 minutes. On top of that, my professor doesn't present things clearly, and really only explains the information as it was presented in our textbook. Our textbook doesn't cover this topic in great detail.

engineer wrote:

sayan wrote:engineer, are your professors unavailable for help so you cannot ask them these sort of questions? It seems like an elementary thing to ask, so I'm just wondering if that's how it is in law school.

At 12am they're not available. My professor doesn't have office hours until Wednesday, and I'm not waiting until then to get an answer and in-depth explanation that I got on here inside of 10 minutes. On top of that, my professor doesn't present things clearly, and really only explains the information as it was presented in our textbook. Our textbook doesn't cover this topic in great detail.

Fair enough.

sayan wrote:

engineer wrote:

sayan wrote:engineer, are your professors unavailable for help so you cannot ask them these sort of questions? It seems like an elementary thing to ask, so I'm just wondering if that's how it is in law school.

At 12am they're not available. My professor doesn't have office hours until Wednesday, and I'm not waiting until then to get an answer and in-depth explanation that I got on here inside of 10 minutes. On top of that, my professor doesn't present things clearly, and really only explains the information as it was presented in our textbook. Our textbook doesn't cover this topic in great detail.

Fair enough.

No matter how nice the prof seems, you'll never get a straight answer in law school. You're supposed to figure shit out on your own. Another reason against 0L prep. If you don't struggle to figure this shit out on your own, you won't know how to do it in upper level classes or as a lawyer.

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

sayan wrote:

engineer wrote:

sayan wrote:engineer, are your professors unavailable for help so you cannot ask them these sort of questions? It seems like an elementary thing to ask, so I'm just wondering if that's how it is in law school.

At 12am they're not available. My professor doesn't have office hours until Wednesday, and I'm not waiting until then to get an answer and in-depth explanation that I got on here inside of 10 minutes. On top of that, my professor doesn't present things clearly, and really only explains the information as it was presented in our textbook. Our textbook doesn't cover this topic in great detail.

Fair enough.

No matter how nice the prof seems, you'll never get a straight answer in law school. You're supposed to figure shit out on your own. Another reason against 0L prep. If you don't struggle to figure this shit out on your own, you won't know how to do it in upper level classes or as a lawyer.

What? The entire POINT of 0L prep is to "figure it out on your own". But because profs want you to learn a specific style or way, this "learning on your own" business is apparently futile.

...

betasteve wrote:

sayan wrote:

mikeytwoshoes wrote: No matter how nice the prof seems, you'll never get a straight answer in law school. You're supposed to figure shit out on your own. Another reason against 0L prep. If you don't struggle to figure this shit out on your own, you won't know how to do it in upper level classes or as a lawyer.

What? The entire POINT of 0L prep is to "figure it out on your own". But because profs want you to learn a specific style or way, this "learning on your own" business is apparently futile.

It's like guided self-revelation in law school. It's like wandering through a pitch black forest, drunk, with a blindfold on as a 0L. However, feel free to ignore this if you aren't actually looking for advice, but simply justifications for what you are planning to do anyway.

I would have added that but I figured it was assumed when advising 0Ls not to prep.

betasteve wrote:

sayan wrote:

mikeytwoshoes wrote: No matter how nice the prof seems, you'll never get a straight answer in law school. You're supposed to figure shit out on your own. Another reason against 0L prep. If you don't struggle to figure this shit out on your own, you won't know how to do it in upper level classes or as a lawyer.

What? The entire POINT of 0L prep is to "figure it out on your own". But because profs want you to learn a specific style or way, this "learning on your own" business is apparently futile.

It's like guided self-revelation in law school. It's like wandering through a pitch black forest, drunk, with a blindfold on as a 0L. However, feel free to ignore this if you aren't actually looking for advice, but simply justifications for what you are planning to do anyway.

I don't understand why 0Ls prep...it makes absolutely no sense at all. I definitely considered it at the time, but I'm happy that the sheer number of people on this board who are fervidly against such a stupid idea had convinced me otherwise. It's an utter waste of time. The only 0L prep you should be doing is figuring out how much liquor your stomach can hold before you vomit. If you absolutely INSIST on doing something law-related (as if drinking isn't..), maybe read a few books on legal writing.

betasteve wrote:

engineer wrote:Ahh okay, I think I've got it now. So, to reiterate, the rule is just the rule of law as stated in legal authority. This should be a pretty dense paragraph or so that just provides a list of the "tools" with which you will be constructing your argument.

The explanation section explains the context surrounding the creation of these tools. For example, you would use the facts of the case to which you're citing to illustrate how this rule should be applied.

Finally, the application section applies the facts in the case at bar to the previously explained case law.

Is that correct?

Pretty much. Rule will be the legal test or standard (prob. either a factors or elements test). Rule explained will show how courts have interpreted the rule itself. Then rule in action will show how courts have applied the interpreted test to the relevant facts before that case. Then, you apply that to your facts. Essentially, your facts should only be in the application section.

YMMV but IME "Rule" and "Rule Explanation" is a waste of time unless you know your professor specifically wants to see those things separately spelled out (ask each one). Some do, but many just want proof that you spotted the issue & know the rule which the analysis can show on its own. Mine were the latter. I specifically asked ahead if my approach was OK (i.e. not stating the rule if it's evident in the analysis) and I'm glad I did because it kept my exams from being a "typing race" and gave me plenty of time to think.

In the case above, I would've said on an exam:

Even though the Engineer read and understood the terms of the contract, because he did not sign it the contract was never formed & thus not enforceable.

Aeroplane wrote:

betasteve wrote:

engineer wrote:Ahh okay, I think I've got it now. So, to reiterate, the rule is just the rule of law as stated in legal authority. This should be a pretty dense paragraph or so that just provides a list of the "tools" with which you will be constructing your argument.

The explanation section explains the context surrounding the creation of these tools. For example, you would use the facts of the case to which you're citing to illustrate how this rule should be applied.

Finally, the application section applies the facts in the case at bar to the previously explained case law.

Is that correct?

Pretty much. Rule will be the legal test or standard (prob. either a factors or elements test). Rule explained will show how courts have interpreted the rule itself. Then rule in action will show how courts have applied the interpreted test to the relevant facts before that case. Then, you apply that to your facts. Essentially, your facts should only be in the application section.

YMMV but IME "Rule" and "Rule Explanation" is a waste of time unless you know your professor specifically wants to see those things separately spelled out (ask each one). Some do, but many just want proof that you spotted the issue & know the rule which the analysis can show on its own. Mine were the latter. I specifically asked ahead if my approach was OK (i.e. not stating the rule if it's evident in the analysis) and I'm glad I did because it kept my exams from being a "typing race" and gave me plenty of time to think.

In the case above, I would've said on an exam:

Even though the Engineer read and understood the terms of the contract, because he did not sign it the contract was never formed & thus not enforceable.

So you saved a sentence per paragraph? Stating the Rule makes it more clear what you're talking about. If you seriously don't have time to write out the Rule you're working then you should just learn to type faster, rather than omit something and hope the analysis you wrote in the heat of test taking was actually clear.

betasteve wrote:

Aeroplane wrote:In the case above, I would've said on an exam:

Even though the Engineer read and understood the terms of the contract, because he did not sign it the contract was never formed & thus not enforceable.

I agree with you re: tests. I believe this thread was re: memos/briefs, and gave the advice under that assumption. I may be wrong.

Oh I thought it was about exams, but you're right it's about briefs. My bad on reading the OP. Didn't mean to hijack the thread.