Abstract:Many wrongly believe that emotion plays little or no role in legal reasoning. Unfortunately, Langdell and his “scientific” case method encourage this error. A careful review of analysis in the real world, however, belies this common belief. Emotion can be cognitive, and cognition can be emotional. Additionally, modern neuroscience underscores the “co-dependence” of reason and emotion. Thus, even if law were a certain science of appellate cases (which it is not), emotion could not be torn from such “science.” As we reform legal education, we must recognize the role of cognitive emotion in law and legal analysis. If we fail to do this, we shortchange law schools, students, and the bar in grievous ways. We shortchange the very basics of true and best legal analysis. We shortchange at least half the universe of expression (the affective half). We shortchange the importance of watching and guarding the true interests of our clients, which interests are inextricably intertwined with affective experience. We shortchange the importance of motivation in law, life, and legal education. How can lawyers understand the motives of clients and other relevant parties without understanding the emotions that motivate them? How can lawyers hope to persuade judges, other advocates, or parties across the table in a transaction without grasping affective experience that motivates them? How can law professors fully engage students while ignoring affective experience that motivates students? Finally, we shortchange matters of life and death: emotions affect health and thus the very vigor of the bar. Using insights from practice, modern neuroscience, and philosophy, I therefore explore emotion and other affective experience through a lawyer’s lens. In doing this, I reject claims that emotion and other affective experience are mere feeling (though I do not discount the importance of feeling). I also reject claims that emotion and other affective experience are necessarily irrational or beyond our control. Instead, such experience is often intentional and quite rational and controllable. After exploring law and affective experience at more “macro” levels, I consider three more specific examples of the interaction of law and emotion: (i) emotion, expression, and the first amendment, (ii) emotion in legal elements and exceptions, and (iii) emotion and lawyer mental health. To provide lawyers and legal scholars with a “one-source” overview of emotion and the law, I have also included an Appendix addressing a number of particular emotions.

On the circularity of the law of effect.

On the law of effect.

Behavioral momentum and the law of effect

Theory of reinforcement schedules

Reward Reinforcement Creates Enduring Facilitation of Goal-directed Behavior

Reconceptualizing the Interaction of Behavior and Environment

On the generality of the laws of learning.

Short-term plasticity as cause-effect hypothesis testing in distal reward learning

Pavlovian learning and conditioned reinforcement

Behavioral psychology's matching law describes the allocation of covert attention: A choice rule for the mind

The perceived dilution of causal strength

Observable Changes of Hypotheses under Positive Reinforcement

Cognitive Emotion and the Law

Beyond Reductionism Twice: No Laws Entail Biosphere Evolution, Formal Cause Laws Beyond Efficient Cause Laws

Influence of reinforcement and its omission on trial‐by‐trial changes of response bias in perceptual decision making

Discriminating Between the Function of Law and the Effect of Law

Challenging the law of least effort

Strong Allee Effect Synaptic Plasticity Rule in an Unsupervised Learning Environment

How instructed knowledge shapes adaptive learning

Both probability and rate of reinforcement can affect the acquisition and maintenance of conditioned responses.

A mediational theory of equivalence relations and transformation of function