Title says it all.
Just looking to see if there is a succinct term, legal or otherwise. Where a bad actor can use the letter of the law to negative and malicious effect despite the spirit or intent of the law being upended or broken.
E: like someone getting a rich man’s son who is a murderer off on a technicality. The law isn’t intended to let murderers go, but a wealthy person willing to prevent justice will exploit it to do so. A person cutting a budget or program that will result in (people going hungry, discrimination, death from lack of care or disease, whatever) knowing that this will be the result, but the law says they can change programs.
Edit: there isn’t a term. Thanks for the suggestions, though.
I’ve normally heard the term “bad faith” used to describe such situations.
You’ll sometimes hear about a lawyer doing this and the judge will chastise them for acting in bad faith or advancing a bad faith argument.
Could be…but also we need the parties involved knowing the outcome is deliberately negative. Bad faith doesn’t quite cut it.
Bad faith is the term. IANAL but I’ve been married to two of them. “Bad faith argument” for the action, “acting in bad faith” for the actor. It captures the idea of appearing to comply with procedure and orders, but deliberately misconstruing meanings and inventing ambiguities to justify actions. A gentler version of this is “sharp practice” which comes close to, but doesn’t cross the line into bad faith.
It’s not quite the same, I think.
“Conservatism”
Yeah. Their behavior is exactly what brings this term search to mind. Funny how you immediately nailed the source immediately.
So funny 😂😭😩
There’s various concepts in common law jurisdictions that go in the same direction.
Malicious compliance
Maybe? But that term is more for revenge than anything else.
It’s not though… It’s complying with a rule/guideline/law in a malicious manner, knowing the other party can’t argue that you didn’t do as demanded. It’s literally the phrase that means what you asked.
Yes, but the compliance is often driven by the recipient of the act, not the independent use of the law. Still not quite the same.
From the rest of the posts it is clear you just want to be contrarian.
No, it’s becoming clear that there isn’t a term for what I’m looking for. And that’s fine.
deleted by creator
Pretty close. That seems a little neutral and leans towards law being used as a weapon regardless of the outcome. I’m looking for a term that is lawfare except deliberate exploitation for a malicious outcome knowing the opponent won’t use the law similarly.
Lawful Evil
Lawful Evil?
Thar’s the user, not the act of exploiting the law.
Malicious compliance is when you follow a order or law knowing that it will backfire on those who issued it.
“Lawfare” is a comparable term but not quite it (basically legal harassment campaigns).
The first is usually revenge and the adherence to the law is often demanded by the recipient of the negative outcome. Lawfare is a little neutral.
hmmm, maybe loopholing is what you’re looking for?
Loopholes could be used, but they aren’t the intent behind the use.
i see. the law itself has to be intentionally “bad” and misrepresentative of whom it should benefit.
Not even needing to be misrepresented or intentional, the law can be neutral or even be intended as a benefit. Let’s look at executive orders by the president. They were never intended to be used like they are, but now they’re used as a king’s decree bypassing congress. Or bankruptcy law, intended to allow a business or individual to get a sort of do-over financially, but instead used to kill employee pension plans or escape debt by foolish spending on luxuries.
It’s not exactly the same but this is a term for basically malicious lawsuits
That’s an interesting term. Using the law itself as the harassing cudgel.
