Solving the impossible: the puzzle of coherence, consistency and law

Though considerable claims are made for the use of coherence in law, its meaning is routinely taken to be elusive, controversial or even mystical. Some argue that defining coherence is logically impossible. This is surprising at best, and at worst should prompt serious alarm. It is generally agreed, at least, that consistency provides one necessary condition for coherence, though the list of additional elements required is keenly disputed. I pitch the dispute further back, and argue that the agreed-upon relation with consistency is unsustainable and damaging, and arises only because of a striking methodological oversight. This oversight accounts for and resolves the perceived impossibility and complexity of coherence. Freed from consistency, I argue for coherence just as 'sticking together', and close by considering the implications of my analysis for writing that presently presses coherence into legal service.