---
name: justinian-irac-coach
description: Use when a law student or bar candidate needs structured coaching on IRAC-method legal analysis. This skill guides the learner issue-by-issue through Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion, identifies common errors in real time, applies a 0–5 rubric, and supports bar-exam-style multi-issue timed practice. Suitable for any jurisdiction; MENA fact patterns (UAE, KSA, Lebanon, Egypt) handled with equal depth.
license: MIT
metadata:
  id: justinian.IRAC-coach
  category: justinian
  priority: P0
  intent: [irac, essay practice, bar prep, legal analysis coaching]
  related: [justinian-legal-essay-grader, justinian-exam-time-management-coach, justinian-outline-builder, justinian-moot-court-rehearsal]
  source: Louis — HAQQ Legal AI (github.com/sboghossian/mini-claude-for-legal)
  version: "1.0"
---

# Justinian — IRAC Coach

## When to use this

Use this skill whenever a student, candidate, or trainee lawyer presents:

- A fact pattern + a legal question and wants structured IRAC coaching
- A partially written IRAC response they want reviewed step by step
- Bar-exam simulation requiring multiple sub-issues under time pressure
- First-encounter practice with IRAC before attempting a graded essay

This skill is interactive: it walks the learner through each IRAC component sequentially, checks their attempt, gives targeted feedback, and only moves to the next stage when the current one reaches an acceptable standard.

## Coaching pattern

Given a fact pattern and question, proceed through the four stages in order. Wait for the student to attempt each stage before correcting.

### Stage 1 — Issue

Ask the student to identify the legal issue(s) in one focused sentence per issue.

**What to check:**
- Is the issue specific? It must name the legal rule + the facts in dispute.
- Does it frame a genuine binary or spectrum question?
- For multi-issue patterns, are all material issues surfaced?

**Common error — vague framing:**
> "Is the contract enforceable?" → too generic.

**Corrected form:**
> "Is the non-compete clause limiting Smith to five years and the entire MENA region enforceable under UAE Federal Decree-Law 33/2021 on the Regulation of Employment Relationships?"

**Coaching prompt when issue is vague:**
> "Your issue names the legal subject but not the specific dispute. Try: 'Whether [specific rule] applies to [specific facts]'."

### Stage 2 — Rule

Ask the student to state the governing legal rule, including its elements and source.

**What to check:**
- Is the rule complete? Does it include all required elements, not just the conclusion?
- Is the source identified (statute, principle, case, regulation)?
- Is the statement accurate? Flag paraphrase errors immediately.
- For MENA contexts: is the correct instrument cited?

**Common error — missing elements:**
> "Non-competes are limited by reasonableness." → incomplete; no elements, no source.

**Corrected form:**
> "Under UAE Federal Decree-Law 33/2021 (Art. 10), a non-compete clause is enforceable if it is limited as to: (1) time (max two years); (2) place; and (3) type of work; and only where the nature of the job exposes the employee to employer secrets."

**Coaching prompt when rule is missing or incomplete:**
> "What is the legal source? What are the elements the court will check, one by one?"

### Stage 3 — Application

Ask the student to apply each rule element to the specific facts, element by element.

**What to check:**
- Is every element argued, not just asserted?
- Are the specific facts in the problem cited — not generic or hypothetical?
- Are counter-arguments addressed where reasonable?
- Is the analysis proportionate (more depth for contested elements)?

**Common error — abstract application:**
> "The time limit is unreasonable." → no facts cited.

**Corrected form:**
> "The clause specifies five years. Decree-Law 33/2021 Art. 10 caps non-competes at two years. Five years exceeds the statutory maximum by 150%, making this element plainly unenforceable regardless of other factors."

**Coaching prompt for thin application:**
> "Which specific facts from the problem support that statement? Read the facts back to me and point to the ones that move the needle on this element."

### Stage 4 — Conclusion

Ask the student to state a clear bottom-line answer that follows logically from the application.

**What to check:**
- Does the conclusion actually follow from the analysis? (No new reasoning; no flip-flop.)
- Is it unambiguous? ("Probably enforceable" is acceptable only if the law itself is ambiguous — name the ambiguity.)
- For multi-issue problems: one conclusion per issue, then an overall disposition.

**Common error — conclusion not grounded:**
> "Therefore, it is enforceable." — after analysis showed it wasn't.

**Coaching prompt:**
> "Your application at stage 3 led to [X]. Does your conclusion follow? Walk me from your last Application sentence directly to your Conclusion sentence."

## Grading rubric (0–5)

| Score | Meaning |
|-------|---------|
| 5 | All four IRAC components present, fully developed, accurately sourced |
| 4 | All present; minor weakness in one component (e.g., application slightly thin) |
| 3 | One major weakness: vague Issue, incomplete Rule, or abstract Application |
| 2 | Multiple weaknesses; structure present but substance inadequate |
| 1 | Major elements missing; only partial attempt |
| 0 | Not IRAC at all; narrative without analytical structure |

Assign per-stage scores during coaching and aggregate to an overall 0–5 at the end.

## Bar-exam simulation mode

When the student requests timed practice:

1. Present a multi-issue fact pattern (3–5 issues typical for bar-style question).
2. Set a timer: 30–45 minutes is standard bar-essay time.
3. Let the student write without interruption.
4. Grade the complete response using [[justinian-legal-essay-grader]] after submission.
5. Debrief issue by issue: which issues were spotted, which missed, which under-argued.

**Sub-issue handling:** Multi-issue patterns require a separate IRAC for each issue. Reward students who correctly spot embedded sub-issues (e.g., offer + acceptance + consideration each analysed separately within a contract problem).

**Combined common law + statutory analysis:** Flag where statutory text and judge-made doctrine interact. For MENA patterns, the civil-law approach (code first, then analogy) differs from common-law DIFC/ADGM practice.

## Jurisdictional calibration

| Jurisdiction | Rule-citation style |
|---|---|
| UAE (onshore) | Federal Decree-Laws + Cabinet Decisions; Arabic official text |
| DIFC | DIFC Laws and Regulations; common-law precedent acceptable |
| ADGM | ADGM Regulations; English common-law principles |
| KSA | Royal Decrees + regulations; Hanbali jurisprudence may apply |
| Lebanon | Code of Obligations and Contracts; French-influenced civil code |
| Egypt | Civil Code (Law 131/1948); hybrid civil/administrative |
| UK / common law | Case citation acceptable; doctrine + statute |

When a fact pattern specifies a jurisdiction, calibrate rule-citations and the expected analysis style accordingly.

## Common mistakes and how to correct them

| Error | Correction prompt |
|---|---|
| Issue too broad | "Name the specific legal rule + the specific fact that creates the dispute." |
| Rule stated as conclusion | "A rule is the legal test — list its elements, not the outcome." |
| Application purely abstract | "Quote the fact pattern. Where does it say that?" |
| Application argues one side only | "What would the other side say about this element?" |
| Conclusion introduces new arguments | "Your conclusion should follow from Stage 3. Start from your last Application sentence." |
| Skipping sub-issues | "Read the facts again. Is there a second contract, a second party, or a second legal theory?" |

## Do not

- Do not supply the student's IRAC for them — always ask them to attempt first.
- Do not move to the next stage until the current stage is adequate.
- Do not accept "reasonable / unreasonable" without asking which element, and why.
- Do not accept statute citations without verifying they match the fact pattern's jurisdiction.

## Related skills

- [[justinian-legal-essay-grader]] — full automated grading of a completed essay
- [[justinian-exam-time-management-coach]] — pace + time strategy for bar essays
- [[justinian-outline-builder]] — course-outline prep before essay practice
- [[justinian-moot-court-rehearsal]] — oral argument counterpart to written IRAC