1

”I think he will appreciate the enormous difference between participating in the justice system as an advocate and becoming one who is responsible for making just law and accurate determinations,” Justice Handler said. ”I relearned the lesson in my own career, that in many ways, it is easier to be an adversary and practice law than to be a judge and dispense justice.”

Alan L. Zegas, a former president of the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey, pointed out that Mr. Albin had also been under consideration to become attorney general in the new McGreevey administration, but he said that Mr. Albin, a friend, had the temperament of a judge.

He is scholarly," Mr. Zegas said, "he has had experience in both criminal and civil litigation, and he has done a substantial amount of pro bono and appellate work".

Mr. Albin, a graduate of Rutgers College, got his law degree from Cornell Law School in 1976 and joined state government as a deputy attorney general that year. He also worked as an assistant prosecutor in Passaic and Middlesex Counties, and joined the Wilentz firm in 1982.(https://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/10/nyregion/mcgreevey-to-nominate-political-supporter-for-new-jersey-s-supreme-court.html)

In the above context, what is the difference between

  1. he has had experience in both criminal and civil litigation.

  2. he has experience in both criminal and civil litigation.

gotube
  • 49,596
  • 7
  • 72
  • 154
Mr. X
  • 828
  • 8
  • 18
  • I believe this may be a duplicate of this: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/122205/he-had-a-gun-or-he-has-had-a-gun – jwh20 Jul 14 '21 at 17:38
  • Can you give us more of the previous context? I can't see past the NYT paywall – gotube Jul 14 '21 at 20:10
  • The speaker knows nothing about the law: we say "He has experience in criminal law and civil litigation." It implies he is still building on that experience and has not quite the law, either kind. – Lambie Jul 14 '21 at 20:21
  • 1
    @gotube, edited. – Mr. X Jul 14 '21 at 21:32

2 Answers2

1

The "has had" construction would mean that while he used to practice those types of law he no longer does so (at least from the litigant's side of the bench). A simple "has" on the other hand would be used where someone is still practicing those skills, i.e. a lawyer's personal advertisements would use "has".

SoronelHaetir
  • 4,607
  • 1
  • 9
  • 12
  • Suppose someone used to practice those laws, but no longer does. Can I still use "he has experience in both criminal and civil litigation"? – Mr. X Jul 14 '21 at 21:40
1

The sentence with either tense can be correctly used both when the experience is ongoing, and when it's finished, as they mean the same thing.

There are nuance differences, however. "He has had experience" suggests that the time in question is over, or that it's no longer relevant, or that it's insufficient for whatever purpose we're discussing.

In contrast, "he has experience" suggests that it's current, or currently relevant, or sufficient for the purpose at hand. So, someone making the argument that overall he wasn't a good candidate would prefer "has had experience."

While they have that difference in nuance, and English speakers prefer one over the other for the appropriate context, the grammar and meaning are correct whichever is chosen. A good editor would correct it.

gotube
  • 49,596
  • 7
  • 72
  • 154
  • Just one more question: Can I replace the main verb "have" in sentence (1) in the OP with the verb "undergo": he has undergone* experience in both criminal and civil litigation*? – Mr. X Jul 15 '21 at 07:05
  • That seems like a new question. Google that expression in quotes – gotube Jul 15 '21 at 17:20