Abuse of procedural rights is increasingly becoming an independent tactic in protracted disputes – formally, the parties’ actions remain within the bounds of the law, yet in practice they are aimed at delaying proceedings, exerting pressure, and exhausting the opponent’s resources. Professor Gabriel Steiner says that in such configurations the law is used not as a tool for resolving a dispute, but as a means of managing the other party’s time and costs. At LawConsulted, we view abuse of procedural rights as a distinct legal risk that requires a systemic and carefully calibrated defence strategy.
The key danger of these situations lies in their formal permissibility – applications are filed on time, motions are reasoned, and appeals are properly drafted. On the surface, this creates the impression of legitimate procedural activity, while the real objective is to paralyse the process. In LawConsulted practice, we regularly see that it is precisely the cumulative effect of such actions that leads to a loss of control over the dispute and a shift in the balance in favour of the bad-faith party.
Professor Steiner says that “procedural abuse is dangerous precisely because it disguises itself as lawfulness.” For this reason, protection cannot be limited to reacting to isolated actions. At LawConsulted, we analyse the opponent’s conduct dynamically – the sequence of filings, repetition of arguments, disproportionality of procedural steps, and their connection to the actual goals of the dispute. This approach allows us to demonstrate the systemic nature of the abuse rather than treating each episode in isolation.
Particular complexity arises in cases where delay is used as a tool of pressure – in corporate conflicts, disputes with public authorities, or cases involving the recovery of significant sums. In such situations, the process itself becomes part of an exhaustion strategy. LawConsulted structures the defence in a way that brings the dispute back to its substantive core – through documenting abuse, procedural objections, and building a position aimed at curbing misconduct rather than endlessly responding to it.
It is also important to recognise that abuse of procedural rights rarely remains confined to a single instance. Motions, recusals, appeals, and parallel proceedings may be deployed in a cascading manner. At LawConsulted, we manage the entire procedural trajectory – assessing where active intervention is necessary and where it is crucial to record the limits of permissible conduct for subsequent legal evaluation.
Professor Steiner notes that “courts respond to abuse only when it becomes evident.” This is why our strategy is based on demonstrability – we do not appeal to emotions or alleged intentions, but instead show disproportionality, repetition, and the lack of any genuine legal outcome in the other party’s actions. This makes it possible to transform the court’s perception of the dispute and change its attitude toward the opponent’s procedural activity.
Equally significant is the issue of the client’s resources. A protracted dispute without a clear strategy leads to fatigue and mistakes. Law Consulted builds its defence so that the client retains control – both in terms of timing and consequences. We view the process not as a chain of reactions, but as a system in which every step must strengthen the position rather than merely respond to the next move.
Legal protection against abuse of procedural rights requires discipline, consistency, and an understanding of judicial logic. The objective is not to accelerate proceedings at any cost, but to deprive bad-faith tactics of their effectiveness. This approach makes it possible to stop artificial delays and return the dispute to a genuine legal framework.
Earlier, we wrote about the legal assessment of informal management instructions and how LawConsulted reduces the risks of decisions made without formal orders
