IRAC Counter-Argument Template (Petitioner)1
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Ivy Tech Community College, Indianapolis *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
Y380
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
8
Uploaded by ConstableLightningSalamander17
IRAC Template – Counter-Argument for Petitioner
Since you represent the Petitioner (i.e., Mr. Bigg) in this case, you will complete a counter-
argument IRAC for the following enacted laws and case law:
Indiana Rule 8.1
Admissions Rule 12.1
In re Blickenstaff
In re O’Farrell
Counter-IRAC #1
Issue:
State the legal issue to be discussed.
Did the Board of Law Examiners properly deny Jacob Bigg’s Application for Admission
to the Indiana Bar due to failure to disclose a criminal conviction on his law school
application?
Rule:
State the relevant rule from the case/enacted rule
Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 8.1: Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters – An
applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer in connection with a bar admission application
or in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not:
(a)
knowingly make a false statement of material fact; or
(b) fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to
have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for
information from an admissions or disciplinary authority, except that this Rule does
not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.
Application:
Apply the relevant rule to the facts that created the issue.
The Board of Law Examiners will argue that Mr. Bigg violated Indiana Rule of Professional
Conduct 8.1: Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters. When in fact, Mr. Bigg did not violate the
rule because there was no intent to withhold information. Admissions allowed Mr. Bigg into law
school in the first place, indicating that there was never a true issue at hand. It wasn't until Mr.
Bigg learned the difference between a state and federal expungement, that he took the Initiative
to address any misapprehensions on his own accord, upon his discovery of the two distinguished
differences.
Conclusion:
State the most likely conclusion. Why does this rule support your opponent’s
position? What can you argue to minimize this position?
The most likely conclusion is that the State Board of Law examiners will re-review Mr. Bigg's
case De Novo and rescind their decision granting Mr. Bigg admission into the Indiana Bar. This
rule supports my opponent's position because it can easily be interpreted that Mr. Bigg simply
should have offered the information regarding his criminal conviction on the initial law school
application. After all, applicants are asked to provide complete disclosures. The fact that Mr.
Bigg took the initiative on his own (without being asked) upon discovery of finding out the
difference between state and federal pardons is enough to show that Mr. Bigg's withholding
information was not intentional. He misunderstood the question because of his lack of
knowledge regarding the expungement process.
Counter-IRAC #2
Issue:
State the legal issue to be discussed.
Did the Board of Law Examiners properly deny Jacob Bigg’s Application for Admission
to the Indiana Bar due to failure to disclose a criminal conviction on his law school
application?
Rule:
State the relevant rule from the case/enacted rule.
Indiana Rule for Admission to the Bar and the Discipline of Attorneys 12.1—The State
Board of Law Examiners shall inquire into and determine the character, fitness, and
general qualifications to be admitted to practice law as a member of the bar of the
Supreme Court of Indiana. It is a condition precedent to admission, whether upon
examination or upon foreign license, that the Board report and certify to the Supreme
Court that the applicant, after due inquiry, has been found to possess the necessary good
moral character and fitness to perform the obligations and responsibilities of an attorney
practicing law in the State of Indiana, and has satisfied all general qualifications for
admission.
Application:
Apply the relevant rule to the facts that created the issue.
The Board of Law Examiners will argue that Mr. Bigg failed to make a complete disclosure of
his criminal conviction on his law school application because Mr. Bigg's assumption that his
conviction was pardoned is not justified by the belief, past or present, or the assertion, that the
criminal record is expunged. The Board will further argue that Mr. Bigg violated Indiana Rule
for Admission to the Bar and Discipline Attorneys 12.1 because there are concerns regarding Mr.
Bigg's morals and character as a result of failing to give a complete disclosure regarding his
criminal conviction in question.
Conclusion:
State the most likely conclusion. Why does this rule support your opponent’s
position? What can you argue to minimize this position?
The most likely conclusion is that the State Board of Law examiners will re-review Mr. Bigg's
case De Novo and rescind their decision granting Mr. Bigg admission into the Indiana Bar.
This rule supports my opponent's position because it can easily be implied that Mr. Bigg simply
should have offered the information regarding his criminal conviction on the initial law school
application. After all, applicants are asked to provide complete disclosures. Hence, it can then be
determined that there are questions regarding Mr. Bigg's character and whether or not he is fit to
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
perform the obligations and responsibilities of an attorney practicing law in the State of Indiana
and has satisfied all general qualifications for admission. The fact that Mr. Bigg took the
initiative to address any misapprehensions after furthering his understanding of expungements,
proves that Mr. Bigg is of good morals and character and that he did not intend to deceive.
Further, as determined by the Board, Mr. Bigg revealed he disclosed the conviction when
required to do so on employment applications and that Mr. Bigg has not committed further
criminal activity. Since the 15-year-old conviction, Mr. Bigg has been an active and productive
member of society, he is working and married with children and has completed a substantial
amount of education. Testimony regarding his work and integrity has been presented and his
employment references indicate a conscientious work record. All of which shows that Mr. Bigg
is of good moral and character and fit to perform the obligations and responsibilities of an
attorney practicing law in the State of Indiana
Counter-IRAC #3
Issue:
State the legal issue to be discussed.
Did the Board of Law Examiners properly deny Jacob Bigg’s Application for Admission
to the Indiana Bar due to failure to disclose a criminal conviction on his law school
application?
Rule:
State the relevant rule from the case/enacted rule.
In re Blickenstaff
- Failure to include marijuana possession charges on bar application
violated Rule 8.1. The party was suspended for one year without auto reinstatement.
Application:
Apply the relevant rule to the facts that created the issue.
The defendant, Kenneth Blickenstaff, knowingly falsified information regarding a prior
conviction before his admittance into the Bar Association. He adequately disclosed a marijuana
possession charge before his admittance but intentionally disregarded the other substances that
were a part of the arrest. Blickenstaff carried out this so-called "white lie" for nearly ten years
before the issue was brought to the Board of Law Examiner's attention. Additionally, when the
issue was brought before the Supreme Court of Indiana; the defendant continued to make false
statements relating to this prior conviction. "The respondent executed an affidavit affirming the
information set out in the Conditional Agreement." In re Blickenstaff. Within this testimony
given to the court, the defendant asserted that he had no criminal record except for one
conviction (marijuana possession charge). More specifically, within his deposition in federal
court in Texas, the respondent was asked if he had any prior criminal record, to which he
answered "No". Blickenstaff had served as a Lake County deputy prosecutor from 1990 to 1993
and director of the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit while an Indiana deputy attorney general from
1993 to 1996. The defendant blatantly violated the Indiana Professional Conduct Rules for
Attorneys when falsifying the information required of him. Blickenstaff allegedly violated six
total rules within the Professional Code of Conduct for Attorneys. The defendant made a false
statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter (Prof. Cond. R. 8.1 (a)), failed
to disclose a fact necessary to correct misapprehension (Prof. Cond. R. 8.1 (b)), knowingly made
false statements under oath (R. 8.4 (b)), Engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, and
misrepresentation (R. 8.4 (c)), and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
(R. 8.4 (d)).In correlation to all of the violations, the defendant was sentenced to a one-year
suspension from the practice of law without automatic reinstatement.
Conclusion:
State the most likely conclusion. Why does this rule support your opponent’s
position? What can you argue to minimize this position?
Both Blickenstaff and Bigg violated the Professional Conduct Rule for Attorneys 8.1. The rule
violation and failing to disclose a prior conviction are the main similarities between the two
cases. This case supports the opponent's argument in that the attorney who violated the same rule
was disciplined in a fashion that could be perceived as severe. There are many reasons why this
case does not necessarily support the opposition's side. One of the key differences between these
two cases is that Bigg did not knowingly violate the rule, whereas Blickenstaff did. Additionally,
Blickenstaff violated an abundance of Professional Conduct rules and Bigg has only been
accused of one. Bigg immediately responded to the inquiry for information regarding his prior
conviction and has been remorseful and honest throughout the entire process. Blickenstaff
continuously lied throughout his trial and still received a less severe punishment than Bigg. Bigg
has been denied admittance into the Bar completely, with no chance of becoming a licensed
attorney. Blickenstaff violated many more rules and was only given a suspension with a chance
to be reinstated.
Comparing these two cases, I believe that this case supports Bigg in that; Bickerstaff's violations
were much more severe, and he still possesses the possibility of becoming an attorney once the
suspension has been served. Bigg unknowingly falsified his information and has violated fewer
rules. Bigg should be admitted into the bar.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Counter-IRAC #4
Issue:
State the legal issue to be discussed.
Did the Board of Law Examiners properly deny Jacob Bigg’s Application for Admission
to the Indiana Bar due to failure to disclose a criminal conviction on his law school
application?
Rule:
State the relevant rule from the case/enacted rule.
In re O’Farrell -
Failure to disclose a DUI in Florida violated Rule 8.1. The party was
suspended for 18 months with conditioned reinstatement
.
Application:
Apply the relevant rule to the facts that created the issue.
Within In re O'Farrell the defendant knowingly falsified information that would be required to
correct misapprehension. In addition to knowingly falsifying information on his bar admittance
application, the defendant failed to disclose his current conviction to the Bar Association.
O'Farrell has been involved in numerous OWI cases that have resulted in guilty pleas. The Court
handed down a discipline suspending O'Farrell from the practice of law for a period of not fewer
than 18 months, with the requirement that such reinstatement be conditioned upon his successful
petition to the court. This case is similar to the current Bigg case in that both individuals are
being accused of violating the same rule. Although O'Farrell has been accused of violating
multiple sections of the Professional Conduct rule Bigg is being accused of violating a specific
section (8.1). The main difference between these two cases is that Bigg unknowingly falsified the
information on his law school application. O'Farrell knowingly falsified prior convictions.
Additionally, there is no discussion of O'Farrell's remorse.
Conclusion:
State the most likely conclusion.
Why does this rule support your opponent’s
position?
What can you argue to minimize this position?
The court held that the attorney's actions warranted a suspension of 18 months with a
conditioned reinstatement with a petition to the court upon completing the suspension. This rule
supports the opponent's position in that both cases deal with a violation of the Rule of
Professional Conduct 8.1. Additionally, the discipline handed down for the violation could be
perceived as support for the opponent's position. I believe that this case supports the Bigg case.
There is a similar occurrence within all of these Professional Conduct Rule Violation cases; all of
the disciplines are not as severe as Bigg's. All of the attorneys who violated the same rule as Bigg
have a chance to practice law after completing their suspensions. Bigg has been completely
banned from ever practicing law as he will not be admitted to the bar. Additionally, Bigg
unknowingly falsified the information and has displayed adequate remorse and given personal
testimony demonstrating adequate moral character and fitness. Yet, Bigg has still received a
harsher discipline than any of the alternative attorneys who violated the same rule.