The aim of this chapter is to advance the following theses: (1) The concept of coherence in law may be best understood in terms of constraint satisfaction; (2) Coherence-based inference is an explanatory kind of inference; (3) There are three main operations whereby coherence may be built in the course of legal decision-making: subtraction, addition, and re-interpretation; (4) Epistemic responsibility is a pivotal component in a theory of legal coherence; (5) Coherentist standards of legal justification vary with context; (6) Coherence-based legal reasoning is a variety of reasoning about ends; (7) There are three main reasons why coherence is a value worth pursuing in law: epistemic reasons, practical reasons, and constitutive reasons; (8) The main motivation of legal coherentism is to provide a non-skeptical alternative to formalism; (9) The coherence theory of legal justification is psychologically plausible and this provides an argument in favor of this theory; (10) Legal coherentism is an agent-centered theory of justification.