The Recipe for Written Legal Arguments

Law students inevitably hear a joke comparing legal writing to getting "hooked on CRAC." CRAC is an acronym for Conclusion Rule Application Conclusion, which lawyers use as the basic formula for legal writing. CRAC is not the only formula for legal writing. Advanced writers may use CREAC with the "E" being the explanation of the rule. In analytical writings, CRAC may become IRAC with the first "C" changing from Conclusion to "Issue." "A" means "application" but its really more about comparing facts to the rules.

CRAC gets the job done. Remembering to use the formula and intentionally applying the formula without too much posturing and chest thumping in writing can go a long way toward winning your arguments. If you can stick to the basics and make a coherent argument, the courts will be thankful that you stuck to the law and left the drama to the Law and Order producers.

Legal analysis and argument is easy to understand as the game tic-tac-toe. If you can look at a finished tic-tac-toe game and explain what happened and declare the winner, then you have all the skills you need to draft a written legal argument. Let's examine the game below.

If you have ever played the game, you know that "O" won the game, but lets pretend that you played this game with a space-alien who didn't believe "O" won and decided to sue. "X" the Plaintiff sued "O" the Defendant for declaratory judgment that the game was a draw, and stated that "O" did not win because the rules of tic-tac-toe say that "the first player to get three of their character in a row before the other player wins the game. "X" argues that the diagonal pattern is not in a "row" because rows are straight lines. How might "X" argue the case using CRAC?

C-"O" did not win this game of tic-tac-toe. No one won and the game was a draw because no player achieved three symbols in a horizontal or vertical row.

R-The rules of tic-tac-toe says that a player has to get three of its symbols in a row.

A-Here, no player has three symbols in a horizontal or vertical row.

C-Because no player has three symbols in a row, there is no winner.

Now, how might "O" argue that "O" is the winner? Unlike "X", "O" researched this scenario thoroughly. And "O" therefore decided to use CREAC instead of just CRAC. "O" will quote and cite a case to strengthen the argument for victory. "O" may make the following legal argument:

C-"O" won the game.

R- The rules of tic-tac-toe state that the first player to get three of its symbols in a row wins.

E- The Texas Supreme Court of Gamesmanship examined a case with similar circumstances several years ago, and the Court said that even though someone may believe that a row had to be three in a row horizontally or vertically, a row is a row, and a row can be diagonal. Tic v. Toe (Games, 1900).

A-Here, "O" achieved the victory because "O" placed three "O" symbols diagonally on the gameboard before "X" did.

C-Because a row can be diagonal in tic-tac-toe, and Because "O" achieved the diagonal row, "O" wins.

Thorough research paired with the simple legal writing formula can get the job done in court. There is no need for grand-standing and finger pointing in legal arguments. Just stick to the facts and apply the facts to the law and not only will you save yourself hours of anxiety about making your argument, but you will appear more confident and professional in your written arguments.

by Joseph "Jody" LaFleur, Esq.

lafleurlaw@outlook.com