Pragmatics is one of the key tools in legal linguistics that examines the meanings of utterances within context and explores the speaker’s intended meanings. One of the central issues in pragmatics is the concept of implicature, introduced by Grice, based on the belief that human communication follows a logical principle known as the Cooperative Principle. Violating this principle leads to the creation of implicatures in discourse. Imam Ali’s legal discourse, by employing linguistic and rhetorical techniques, provides a rich ground for analyzing discourse implicatures. Using a descriptive-analytical method within the framework of Grice's theory, the present study examines the violation of the Cooperative Principle in Imam Ali's legal discourse and seeks to uncover the implicit meanings embedded in this discourse, aiming to achieve a comprehensive understanding of his legal rhetoric. The findings revealed that Imam Ali, through strategic use of linguistic and rhetorical devices, deliberately violated the Cooperative Principle. This deliberate violation generates discourse implicatures that play a crucial role in conveying fundamental messages. These implicatures indicate that the central signifier in this discourse is justice, which serves as a pivotal concept permeating all dimensions of the discourse. Alongside this, floating signifiers such as responsible governance, popular legitimacy, and realism highlight various aspects of justice and function as complementary elements within this discourse. Furthermore, Imam Ali’s legal discourse, compared to its contemporary counterparts, distinguishes itself through purposeful implicit meanings, thereby not only asserting its superiority but also contributing to the expansion of Islamic meta-discourse in the field of law.