Beske’s Tips #2:

The Look of CREAC

I start with the “C” of CREAC, and I briefly state my conclusion and/or give context on this
issue. I then proceed to the synthesized Rule. Generally, it will be one or two sentences, no
more. I follow these sentences with citations.

Now I get to the “Explanation” of my rule, where I show how cases fit together to make up
my synthesized rule. I will structure this topically rather than in a case-by-case way. To
reference our Garden Hose example, I might make paragraph 1 of my E section all about the
invited/uninvited guest distinction. I might make paragraph 2 of my E section all about the
voluntary/involuntary trespass distinction. I am not afraid to make my Explanation more than
one paragraph, and I will make sure to begin each paragraph with a substantive topic sentence,
rather than “In the Smith case, ….” In fact, I will remember Beske’s Per Se Rule: No case
names in the first sentence of a paragraph, ever.

I will group all of my E paragraphs together rather than alternating E-A-E-A within a single
CREAC. This is the area where I want the reader to have absolute clarity on the law, and
communicating the concepts piecemeal may lead to confusion. In fact, I will strive for absolute
analytical separation between the E section and my A section. In the E section, I will not discuss
the facts of my client’s case at all. My goal will be explaining each component of the law clearly
and logically so that the partner arrives at the next section well-prepared to analyze our case.

Turning to Application, I will typically begin with some kind of signaling language that
makes clear I am switching gears. I will specifically engage the cases that I cited in the
Explanation section, distinguishing them as necessary and comparing them. Generally, I will try
to reference every case that was important enough to be mentioned in the Explanation section,
and I will do so in the context of drawing specific comparisons to my facts.

My Application can be as many paragraphs as I need, and again, it will have topical
organization. One of the most important things I will remember is that no new aspects of cases
will emerge in the Application. That is called E-A blending, and I will strive to keep my E and
A sections analytically distinct.

Finally, I get to my Conclusion. This is not very long. I attempt to summarize why the
application of the synthesized rule to our facts gives rise to a particular result.