Definition
Latin: "to lose one's free law." A phrase from early English law denoting the punishment by which a person was stripped of their legal standing as a free and credible witness or party before the courts. One who had *amittit liberam legem* — who had "lost the law" — was rendered legally infamous: incapable of giving oath testimony, of serving on a jury, and in some formulations, incapable of maintaining an action at law on their own behalf.
The condition was not merely a procedural disability but a fundamental degradation of legal personality. The person so punished was sometimes called a *legis amissio* or said to be *intestabilis* — a term from Roman-influenced learning meaning one whose testimony could not be received and who could not transact legally valid acts requiring witnesses.
---
Common Confusion
AMITTERE LIBERAM LEGEM vs. OUTLAWRY: These are related but distinct consequences. Outlawry (*utlagaria*) placed a person entirely outside the king's peace and protection — they could be killed with impunity and had no recourse at law. Loss of free law was a lesser, though still severe, civil degradation: the person remained within the law's protection but was stripped of their capacity to use the law's machinery as a participant. Researchers encountering one term in historical records should not assume the other applied.
AMITTERE LIBERAM LEGEM vs. ATTAINDER: Attainder arose from conviction of felony or treason and carried consequences including forfeiture of property and corruption of blood. Loss of free law was more specifically tied to testimonial and procedural incapacity and was the characteristic consequence of the *peine forte et dure* alternative to trial, of conviction in the appeal of felony, or of judgment against a party in the ancient proceeding known as the *Wager of Battle*.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term belongs almost exclusively to medieval and early modern English legal history. Researchers will encounter it in:
**Year Books and plea rolls.** The phrase appears in Latin records of the common law courts from the 13th through 16th centuries. Reading it in context requires understanding that loss of free law was a named legal status, not a casual description.
**Proceedings in appeal and wager of battle.** The appeal of felony — a private accusation tried by battle — could result in the defeated appellee losing his free law. This procedural consequence is frequently mentioned in treatises on the ancient forms of trial and distinguishes the appeal from ordinary indictment.
**Conspiracy and *Ordinance of Conspirators* (1293).** The statute targeting conspiracy in legal proceedings imposed loss of free law as a penalty on those convicted of suborning false accusations. Researchers working on the history of conspiracy, champerty, or maintenance will encounter this phrase in that statutory context.
**The transition to modern incompetency rules.** When English courts of the 17th and 18th centuries debated the competency of witnesses, they drew on the older concept of *amittere liberam legem* to explain why convicted felons were disqualified from testifying. The modern rule of witness incompetency based on prior conviction — later largely abolished in both England and American states — is this doctrine's direct descendant. Understanding the Latin phrase illuminates why reformers framing Evidence codes treated felon incompetency as an archaic survival requiring explicit statutory abrogation.
**Corpus trap.** Because the phrase disappears from active legal usage after roughly the 17th century, it rarely appears in American case law except in historical or treatise discussions. A researcher searching only American sources will find it only in antiquarian treatment. English ecclesiastical and chancery records may use cognate phrasing.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence define *amittere liberam legem* as losing "the benefit of the law" — specifically the privilege of being sworn as a witness or juror — and connect it to the condition of *infamy* at common law. Their treatment correctly identifies the phrase as a Latin formula describing legal consequence rather than a discrete cause of action or writ.
The entry is accurate as far as it goes but characteristically terse. It does not situate the phrase within the procedural contexts most likely to generate it (the appeal of felony, conspiracy proceedings, wager of battle) and does not trace its downstream influence on competency doctrine. Researchers relying on Rapalje & Lawrence alone will understand what the phrase means but not why it appears in any particular document.
Older English dictionaries in the common law tradition — Termes de la Ley, Cowell's Interpreter, and Jacob's Law Dictionary — treat related concepts under *infamy* and *legis amissio* without always cross-referencing this specific Latin formula. Bracton's *De Legibus* uses the concept in discussing the consequences of the appeal, and Blackstone (Commentaries, Book III) addresses the competency consequences of infamy in terms that are the functional modern translation of this phrase.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This phrase has no operative force in American or contemporary English law. It is a term of historical English common law. American Evidence codes and the Federal Rules of Evidence eliminated witness incompetency based on criminal conviction; any residual research relevance is historical and comparative.
---