<p>Multimodal argumentation-combining textual, visual, and symbolic reasoning-has become an essential framework for analyzing and interpreting legal codes. However, its use in legal scholarship faces significant challenges due to the rigid nature of legal language and its strong textual focus. This study critically explores the difficulties in implementing multimodal argumentation for legal code interpretation, emphasizing its effects on clarity, accessibility, and adaptability across various legal systems. Methodologically, the research utilizes qualitative content analysis of secondary data, including legal documents, judicial interpretations, and scholarly literature on semiotics and legal theory. By examining secondary data from comparative legal analysis, case law, and studies on legal semiotics, this research identifies gaps in current literature, particularly the absence of a cohesive framework for integrating multimodal argumentation into legal practice. The findings indicate that although multimodal approaches present new opportunities for improving the understanding and use of legal codes, they also bring up significant issues related to standardization, bias, and the risk of misinterpreting non-textual elements. This paper adds to legal scholarship by suggesting an evaluative model that reconciles the interpretive advantages of multimodality with the importance of preserving legal certainty. The conclusion highlights the need for interdisciplinary collaboration to create strong frameworks that incorporate multimodal argumentation while upholding the fundamental principles of legal reasoning.</p>