Judicial Decisions like paper money exist only insofar as they are collectively recognized. Essential for its collective recognition is the linguistic self-representation of judicial findings. The problem is: Can the self-representation of judicial decisions as single right ones even in hard cases be justified, considered the falsehood of the Dworkinian thesis of the existence of single right answers in every case? Can it be something else than a means of disguise for the judiciary to maintain its power? A positive answer can be given on the basis of a fictionalistic understanding of legal argumentation: the self-representation of judicial decisions as single right ones can be justified if its counterfactuality is not disguised from addressees but communicated. Collective recognition can thus refer to the self-representation of judicial decisions.