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.

Respect for the Moral Law: the Emotional Side of Reason

Dilemma of Moral Dilemmas:The Conflict Between Emotion and Reasoning in Moral Judgments

Do emotions play an essential role in moral judgments?

The Logic of Emotional Experience: Noninferentiality and the Problem of Conflict Without Contradiction

Law, Reason, and Emotion

The emotional foundations of high moral intelligence

The Relationship Between Emotion and Cognition with Moral Self-regulation

Emotional Theory of Rationality

An Attributional Analysis of Moral Emotions: Naïve Scientists and Everyday Judges

Law and Emotion: How Empathy Forms the Judges' Sense of Justice

Cooperative versus competitive influences of emotion and cognition on decision making: A primer for psychiatry research

When is lack of emotion a problem for justice? Four views on legal decision makers’ emotive life

Passionate rationalism: the role of emotion in decision making

Emotion, rationality, and social identity: a theoretical–methodological proposal for a cognitive approach

How to judge emotions? Measuring moral emotions of lawyers in a retrospective situation

Cognitive Emotion and the Law

Kant’s Virtue Theory

The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.

Moral Cognition in Criminal Punishment

Emotions and Ethical Decision Making at Work: Organizational Norms, Emotional Dogs, and the Rational Tales They Tell Themselves and Others

Fairness, Hierarchy, and Moral Rationalization, or What's Wrong With Paradise Lost?