Definition
In experience is a Law French phrase meaning "concerned in" or "involved with" a matter. It appears in early English legal reports to indicate that a party, judge, or other person had some prior connection to, participation in, or interest in the case at hand. The phrase functions as a term of involvement or engagement — signifying that the person identified was not a stranger to the proceedings but had been a participant or had some relevant stake in the matter.
The phrase is not a term of modern legal art and does not appear in contemporary practice. Its significance is almost entirely historical and paleographic — it surfaces in Law French case reports, particularly in the Year Books and early printed reporters such as Dyer, and researchers encounter it when reading or translating those sources.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "In experience" is not a recognized fixed phrase in modern English. The word "experience" denotes knowledge or skill gained through direct participation in events or activities.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "Experience" is defined as "trial, as a test or experiment" and "the effect upon the judgment or feelings produced by any event, whether witnessed or participated in."
The gap here is not between legal and common meaning but between the Law French technical phrase and any English reading of the words. A researcher encountering "in experience" in a translated or anglicized report might read it as a reference to practical knowledge or prior familiarity. In its Law French legal context, it means specifically "concerned in" or "having been a party to" — a statement of legal involvement, not of personal knowledge or expertise.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working in pre-modern English legal sources — Year Books, Dyer's Reports, Plowden, and similar Law French or Law French-influenced texts — will encounter this phrase as a statement of a party's or judge's connection to a case. The critical research trap is misreading "in experience" as a reference to competency, expertise, or evidentiary matters. It is not. When Dyer records that someone "had been in experience" with a case, the phrase is establishing prior involvement, not prior knowledge in the evidentiary sense.
This distinction matters most when researchers are:
1. Tracing recusal or disqualification doctrine in early common law. A record that a judge "had been in experience" with a case could be relevant to early concepts of judicial interest and impartiality, but only if the phrase is correctly understood as denoting involvement rather than expertise.
2. Interpreting pleading records. The phrase could signal that a party had previously appeared in the matter, affecting questions of res judicata, estoppel, or prior proceeding.
3. Translating or abstracting Law French sources for secondary use. Mistranslation here propagates forward into secondary literature and can corrupt later analysis.
The Law Mind corpus connection to the Employment & Labor Law Encyclopedia entry on experience rating is terminological only — "experience" as used in modern insurance and labor law (reflecting a party's claims or loss history) is a wholly distinct concept with no historical connection to this Law French phrase. Researchers should not import modern "experience rating" doctrine into readings of this phrase.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary is the primary surviving English-language legal dictionary source for this phrase. Burrill renders it accurately: "concerned," and anchors it to Dyer 32 (French edition). This is a minimalist but reliable entry — Burrill gives enough to decode the phrase in context without elaborating doctrine, because there is no doctrine to elaborate. The phrase is a reporter's shorthand, not a legal standard.
No other major historical legal dictionaries — not Tomlin's, not Bouvier's, not Black's early editions — appear to carry this phrase as a separate entry. Burrill's coverage reflects his broader attention to Law French vocabulary that other compilers passed over. Researchers who consult only Bouvier or Black will find no entry and may be left to guess at meaning from context alone. This is precisely the gap Burrill fills for Law French source work.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This phrase is specific to early English common law sources and the Law French reporting tradition. It has no recognized meaning in American, Scottish, or civilian legal systems, and does not appear in any modern jurisdiction's statutory or case law vocabulary.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Employer Challenges and Experience Rating (The Law Mind Employment & Labor Law Encyclopedia) — Note: the connection is terminological only. That entry addresses modern experience rating in unemployment insurance, a wholly distinct concept. Researchers should not read the modern doctrine back into this historical phrase.
---