Module 1: Foundations of Legal Argumentation

IRAC stands for Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion. The "R" represents the Rule - the applicable legal principle, statutory provision, or precedent that governs the issue at hand. This forms the legal foundation upon which the argument is built.

The "strongest first" approach is recommended because judicial attention is highest at the beginning. Lead with your most compelling argument to establish credibility and frame the narrative favorably. This is the principle of primacy in persuasion.

Ad Hominem (Latin: "to the person") is a fallacy where one attacks the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. Courts consistently discourage such attacks as they do not address the legal merits.

Ratio decidendi ("reason for deciding") is the binding legal principle that forms the basis of a judgment and must be followed by lower courts. Obiter dicta ("things said by the way") are observations made in passing that are persuasive but not binding precedent.

Whether conduct constitutes "negligence" is a question of law - it requires applying legal standards to determine if the conduct meets the legal definition. Questions of fact deal with what happened (presence, speed, damages), while questions of law deal with legal interpretation and application.

Appellate courts give deference to Trial Court's findings of fact because the Trial Court has the advantage of observing witnesses firsthand. However, such findings can be overturned if they are perverse, against the weight of evidence, or based on no evidence at all.

An effective case theory creates a coherent narrative that weaves together facts, applicable law, and equitable considerations into a compelling story. This approach helps judges understand not just what happened legally, but why justice supports your client's position. Ignoring unfavorable facts is both unethical and strategically unwise.

The recommended strategy is to address unfavorable facts proactively. By acknowledging the fact first, you control the narrative, appear credible, and can provide context that minimizes its impact. This is called "drawing the sting" - it prevents the opposing counsel from presenting it dramatically as a revelation.

The Supreme Court primarily deals with substantial questions of law and constitutional matters. Arguments should be concise and principle-focused, emphasizing legal interpretation, constitutional implications, and development of jurisprudence. Factual details are generally left to lower courts, and emotional appeals are less effective at this level.

Tribunals are specialized bodies with subject-matter expertise. Members often include technical experts alongside judicial members. Effective advocacy before Tribunals requires demonstrating domain knowledge, citing specialized statutes and rules, and presenting practical, solution-oriented arguments that acknowledge the Tribunal's expertise and focus on efficient resolution.