Mastering Legal Problem-Solving: A Guide to the ILAC Method

Note: ILAC (Issue, Law, Application, Conclusion) and IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) refer to the same method. The terms ‘Law’ and ‘Rule’ are used interchangeably. This article uses ILAC.

Let’s be real, every law student has heard of the ILAC method. But let’s be even more real, many don’t know how to use ILAC effectively under pressure. ILAC is  a way of showing your examiner that you understand not just what the law is, but how to use it like a real lawyer.

With finals fast approaching, this article aims to help you sharpen your legal reasoning and master the ILAC method, not just to pass, but to produce a structured and analytical answer to impress your lecturers and earn the marks your hard work deserves.

Why ILAC Matters (More Than You Think)

Think of it like solving a math problem: the examiner is not only interested in the final answer, but in how you arrived at that answer. Did you follow the correct legal framework? Did you apply the right cases and principles? Did you think critically and engage with the arguments? 

This is where the ILAC method comes into the picture, because it helps you showcase a deep understanding of the law and the ability to apply that law to complex factual scenarios. At the same time, it allows space for critical engagement, alternative arguments and persuasive reasoning which serves as the cherry on top of a well-reasoned answer.

The ILAC Breakdown

Let’s zoom in on each part of ILAC with my own practical tips.

Issue: Ask the Right Questions

Begin by identifying the precise legal issues raised in the facts. The key is to be as specific as possible. 

For example, if the question concerns the topic of negligence in tort, avoid phrasing a general and vague issue like “Is there negligence?”. Instead, break it down into more specific sub-issues: “Did the defendant owe a duty of care to the plaintiff?”; “Was there a breach of that duty?”; “Did the breach cause the plaintiff’s harm?”. 

After identifying the sub-issues, deal with them separately, each with its own mini-ILAC structure. Don’t lump everything together into one single paragraph, your examiner will appreciate the clarity.

By breaking down broader questions into targeted sub-issues, you can present your answer in a more organised, logical and persuasive sequence. It also signals the examiner that you understand the underlying framework and not just the surface-level answer.

Law: Don’t Just Dump the Case List

This section is where most law students shine. Finally, a chance to unleash all the cases, statutes and legal principles you’ve painstakingly memorised before the exams. But here’s the catch: more isn’t always better.

Sure, you might have a golden case list at your side, but dumping every case you know won’t impress your examiner. What matters is picking the right tool (law) for the job (answering the question).

First, be strategic and choose what matters. Start by identifying the leading cases and principles that apply directly to each issue you’re discussing. Using the negligence example above, cases that are highly relevant to establish a duty of care are Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 and Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605. Don’t just name-drop, but bring in the brief facts as well, especially when the facts of the precedent mirror the scenario you’re analysing. If there are any relevant statutory provisions, don’t forget to cite them as well, as they’re also part of the legal foundation.

Second, distil the essence. As an illustration, Donoghue introduces the ‘neighbour principle’, while Caparo lays down the ‘three-fold test’ for duty of care. Explain why the case matters, and not just what it says.

So, don’t dump the case list here. Focus on clarity, relevance and depth of the effective principles and ratio decidendi that matter. That’s how you build a strong foundation for the ‘Application’ section  that follows.

Application: Time to Lawyer Up

This is the heart of your answer, and where most marks are made (or lost). This is your chance to show the examiner that you’re not just memorising the law, but showing how the law you’ve set out applies and interacts with the specific facts of the problem. 

But be warned: this is not the place for repeating the facts of the question. Instead, it’s for you to directly connect the dots between the principle and the problem. You’ve unpacked all the legal tools in the ‘Law’ Section. Now you need to pick the right one and use it. 

Method 1: Draw Parallels

A common and effective approach is to draw parallels between the facts of the case law cited and the facts at hand. Does the fact pattern in your question mirror a precedent? Did the court rule a certain way in similar circumstances? Can you use that reasoning to argue for a similar outcome?

Method 2: Distinguish Like a Pro

On the other hand, there are also instances where it is strategic and useful to distinguish the current facts from those in earlier cases. Sometimes, your facts don’t quite line up with precedent, and that’s where you distinguish it to argue for a different outcome. Maybe the relationship isn’t close enough. Maybe the harm wasn’t foreseeable. Use that to your advantage. 

Plus Points: Counterarguments and Policy Angles

To elevate your analysis further, you can also anticipate and pre-empt possible counter-arguments that may be raised by the other party. Here, you can use obiter dicta from relevant judgments, academic commentary for deeper insight, or policy considerations to bolster your reasoning for a more persuasive or socially just outcome.

Remember: the Application section is your chance to think like a lawyer, not just a student.

Conclusion: What’s the Verdict?

Last but not least, tie everything together with a clear and definitive conclusion. If there are multiple plausible outcomes, identify the most persuasive outcome and justify your reasoning.

What Your Lecturers Wish You Knew

If there’s one thing your law lecturers want you to remember about answering problem questions, it’s to go beyond knowing the law, but to use the law well.

Dr. Wilson Tay Tze Vern, Senior Lecturer at Taylor’s Law School, puts it simply: accuracy and clarity above all. 

He also reminds students that the Conclusion section isn’t just a throwaway paragraph. He encourages students to use evaluative language that reflects the significance of their analysis. Phrases such as “this strongly supports the view that…”, “this may suggest that…”, or “this clearly outweighs the other arguments above…” help demonstrate that you’re not just summarising, but persuading. “Your answer should reflect your own analytical voice.” 

Dr. Jaganraj Ramachandran, also a Senior Lecturer at Taylor’s Law School, offers practical advice from the examiner’s perspective.

To him, structure is everything. However, many students fall into the trap of writing a single block of text without clearly separating the Issue, Law, Application, and Conclusion. He advised students to use clear signposts, so that it’s easier to follow. 

He also urged students to explain the cases instead of just name-dropping them:

“For instance, merely stating “Burmah Oil v Lord Advocate” is insufficient. It is far more meaningful to explain what the case held, why it was significant, and how it applies to the legal issue in question. A better approach would be to say, “In Burmah Oil v Lord Advocate, the court held that retrospective legislation could be used to overturn judicial decisions, highlighting the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.” This adds context, demonstrates understanding, and strengthens the legal analysis.”

Dr. Sia Chin Chin, club advisor of Taylor’s Lexicon, and also a Senior Lecturer at Taylor’s Law School offers a focused perspective on the strategic use of case law. 

Dr. Sia stated that a common mistake that students make is misunderstanding the ratio decidendi, confusing it with obiter dicta. To avoid this, she encourages students to engage with case law more actively and strategically, by identifying the legal principle and summarising the case in two or three clear sentences. For more visual learners, she even suggests rewriting complex judgments in plain English or breaking them down into comic-strip form.

Another common, yet overlooked error, is ignoring jurisdictional boundaries. While international cases can be insightful, students must be careful to identify whether the authority is binding or merely persuasive in their own jurisdiction. Furthermore, some students rely upon outdated authorities that have been overturned or are no longer good law. To combat this, students should actively verify whether a case remains good law. 

Finally, Dr. Sia advises students to practice ILAC by using mock scenarios or past exam problems. “Try to apply multiple cases to a single issue and justify which fits best”

Final Thoughts

So as exams approach, challenge yourself to go beyond memorisation and actively engage with ILAC. Like any skill, mastering ILAC takes practice. With enough practice, ILAC becomes less of a formula and more of a mindset. It might just be that one thing that takes your answer from ‘good’ to ‘first-class’.