Ronald Dworkin became one of the most influential legal philosophers of the last century by providing a "sophisticated alternative to legal positivism". Dworkin is an unorthodox natural law theorist, his account of law centered on his theory of adjudication. A key aspect of adjudication is the concept of law as integrity. However, some commentators suggest that Dworkin's ideal does not reflect the reality of judicial interpretation. In this article I will outline Dworkin's “law as integrity” and then highlight some of the criticisms that seem to cast doubt on his writings as a convincing model. I will conclude that, while his primary opponents offer some substantive criticisms of Dworkin's theory of “law as integrity,” Dworkin establishes a compelling theory that seeks to bridge the gap on judicial discretion that other notable theorists, including HLA Hart, fail to to reach. "Law as integrity" and discretion"Law as integrity" embraces a vision for judges that states that, to the extent possible, judges should identify legal rights and duties on the assumption that they are created by the public as an entity and that they express the public's perception of justice and equity. This requires Dworkin's ideal of Hercules, a judge gifted with "superhuman abilities, learning, patience, and acumen," to ask whether his interpretation of the law can be part of a coherent theory that justifies the entire legal system. Law as integrity states that the law must express one voice. Judges must accept that the law is based on consistent principles of justice, fairness and procedural due process, in all new cases that come before them, in order to treat everyone equally. The concept of "law as integrity" first emerged in Dworkin's most cited book...half of the article...m claiming that Hercules is superficial and unattainable, Dworkin argues not to press, (as mentioned above) , in believing that a Hercules standard is achievable for the everyday judge. However, it suggests that over the course of their legal experience they will have acquired sufficient information and knowledge to be able to evaluate which cases to use if they are faced with a difficult case. Many argue that this response is weak because it does not take into account the problem that Hercules possesses an “omnipotence of legal knowledge.” While judges may have acquired enough experience to be somewhat wise and insightful, they cannot claim to be omnipotent. Therefore the judgment made by the judge may not be the "right answer" as their understanding and response are limited to their experience and do not extend to the capabilities of Hercules with his unlimited time, knowledge and wisdom..