Given the distinction between knowing-that and knowing-how, one could claim that legal knowledge is eminently practical: one who knows the law enjoys some form of knowing-how, namely, how to exercise certain intellectual faculties, or how to perform certain activities like interpreting legal texts or arguing a case. I present some arguments to the effect that legal knowledge is not practical, being rather propositional in nature, as knowing-that instead of knowing-how. This is not to deny, though, that such activities like interpretation and argumentation are extremely important in the legal domain. I also consider whether legal knowledge is practical in a different sense, namely, with a view to decision and action. I contend that it is not practical in this sense either, even if it is mainly used for practical purposes.