---

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