This chapter establishes the strong link between coherence and legal reasoning. In so doing, it draws three main conclusions. A first conclusion is that legal reasoning is an instance of practical reasoning and practical deliberation. What this means, ultimately, is that when one reasons and argues about the content of the law one does not seek to discover truth in the same sense as when forming an opinion about the way things are in nature. Rather, the aim is to formulate a reasoned opinion and commit oneself to a specific course of action given the presence of a legal problem. A second conclusion is that, when understood as practical reasoning, legal reasoning exhibits certain coherence-related features. These are: (i) a web-like structure; (ii) the fact that rationality in legal reasoning does not depend only on logic but also on plausibility (or fit); and (iii) a purposive nature. A third conclusion is that coherence acts as a substantive and a methodological principle during legal reasoning, thus further confirming the dual dimension of coherence identified in Chapter 1.