How to Make a FIRAC: The Best Way to Organize All Your Cases!

A key to success in law school is taking the most important material from each case and organizing it in a way where you can understand it come exam time. A useful method for achieving this goal is to complete what is called a “FIRAC” chart for each case. FIRAC stands for; Facts, Issue statement, Ratio, Analysis, and Conclusion. Here is an example of the chart below.

These five things are essential to understand from each case regarding what to take away from the case and how to apply it to the next case. I will go over how to make a FIRAC and use a case example to show how to determine what goes in each section.

Facts

The “facts” section is fairly self-explanatory and does not need to be explained in much detail. When doing my FIRAC’s, I like to jot down 4–5 of the case’s key facts, so I remember what happened during the class discussion of the case. In the first case I read in my 1L year, “Edwards v AG of Canada,” often referred to as the “Persons” case, the key facts of the case were that several qualified women in Canada wanted to be considered for Senators but had been forbidden up to this point. The BNA act of 1867 stated the governor-general could nominate qualified persons to the senate.

Issue

The Issue statement is phrased as a question; what is the legal issue at hand? The legal issue can be thought of as what question is the judge trying to answer with this case. In this case, “Edwards v AG of Canada,” the legal issue was, are women considered “qualified persons” under the BNA Act?

Ratio

Next is the “Ratio” of the case. The Ratio, or often called the rule, is the legal principle that is created from this case. The Ratio is the most important thing to take away because it will be applied to similar cases in the future because of precedent. If the court concluded in one case, then it should come to the same conclusion in a similar case. Using the same Edwards v AG of Canada case, the Ratio of that case came in two parts. Firstly, women are considered “qualified persons.” Secondly, the BNA act of 1867 should be read broadly and can grow and evolve over time. This idea is called the “living tree doctrine.” The judge from that case explained that even if something is not explicitly written down in this document, it can be interpreted to include new areas to fit Canada’s evolving social, political, and legal views as the country grows into a modern society.

This Ratio was used to get the conclusion in a future case called Reference re Same-Sex Marriage. This case decided in 2004, used the rule of the living tree doctrine from “Edwards.” Even though Canada’s constitution did not explicitly say gay marriage is allowed, it should be read with a “large liberal interpretation” to include more people as society evolves. A key to succeeding in exams is using the ratios of cases throughout the year to determine the result of the exam fact pattern.

Analysis

The “analysis” section is understood as to why the court came to the conclusion it did. In each FIRAC, I like to write down both the reasoning for the court’s decision and the opposing arguments against the decision usually found in the decent. This approach helps me get a complete understanding of the thinking behind the ruling. In “Edwards,” the court concluded that women are “qualified persons” for several reasons. First, because the BNA act did not state that they were not “qualified persons.” If the authors of the act wanted to make sure only men became senators, they could have written that specifically.

Moreover, the reasons to exclude women from government roles were outdated and unreasonable. As for the rule that the BNA act should be understood as a living tree, the court concluded that Canada would continuously change and evolve. A narrow reading of the act may hold Canada back due to something the founders of Canada did not anticipate or did not exist at the time. On an exam, the analysis section is important for comparing previous cases to the exam scenario and showing how they are similar or different. For example, many students will answer a question by saying the court in a previous case said this rule applies for such a reason. These reasons come from the analysis section. Then the student would write if that reason applies in the exam fact pattern or not. If it doesn’t, then the Ratio of the case should not be applied to the exam scenario.

Conclusion

Finally, the conclusion section is also straightforward and self-explanatory. I would write a brief sentence stating if the appeal was won or denied or whatever the case’s legal result may be. In “Edwards,” the conclusion would be that women are “qualified persons,” and thus, Edwards and the other plaintiffs won their appeal.

To conclude, making a FIRAC for each case helps you organize all the essential information for each case in a way you can apply on an exam. An easy way to organize these FIRACs is to have one long word document for each class that is just a FIRAC for each class for the year. This document can easily be edited to make a “CAN” which I’m sure anyone reading this has heard about extensively already!