Temporary management measures are an inherent part of corporate reality – decisions are taken under conditions of uncertainty, limited information, and time pressure, where waiting for formal approval may exacerbate risks to the business. Professor Gabriel Steiner says that it is precisely such measures that most often become the subject of retrospective legal qualification, as the law tends to assess them not by the circumstances of their adoption but by the consequences that followed. In LawConsulted practice, these situations are treated as an independent area of heightened legal risk requiring precise and context-driven protection.
The core vulnerability of temporary management measures lies in their transitional nature – they are adopted as exceptions, yet often remain in effect longer than originally intended or begin to exert systemic influence on the business. Formally, such decisions may not breach procedures, but in the event of a dispute or inspection they are reclassified as unlawful acts, excess of authority, or sources of loss. LawConsulted proceeds from the principle that legal assessment must take into account the temporary character of the measure, its purpose, and the objective constraints of the moment.
Professor Steiner emphasizes that “an operational decision cannot be assessed as a strategic one if it was taken under conditions of forced necessity.” For this reason, LawConsulted begins its work by reconstructing the management context – identifying the threats that existed, the alternatives that were realistically available, and the consequences expected in the event of inaction. This approach makes it possible to demonstrate that the measure was a reasonable response rather than an arbitrary management step.
Particular complexity arises where temporary measures later become the basis for allegations of tort liability. Economic damage, regulatory claims, or corporate disputes are often accompanied by attempts to oversimplify the situation – presenting a temporary decision as a conscious violation. LawConsulted structures its defense so as to separate the fact of an adverse outcome from the legal assessment of the client’s conduct at the time the decision was made.
Equally significant is the factor of tacit approval. Temporary measures are frequently implemented without explicit objections from collegial bodies or shareholders, which is later used as an argument against the decision-maker. LawConsulted analyzes the allocation of powers and the real capacity to influence outcomes, demonstrating where responsibility for extending or failing to terminate a measure lies beyond the client.
It is also essential to consider the retrospective logic of legal enforcement. Once a temporary measure loses relevance, the law tends to view it as an error, disregarding the uncertainty of the original situation. Professor Steiner says that this is precisely where the risk of transforming a management decision into a tort arises. LawConsulted brings the assessment back to the point in time when the measure was adopted, relying on the information available, the urgency involved, and the management necessity that existed.
Work on such cases requires not formal justification but legal reconstruction. We show that the temporary measure was limited in purpose and duration, and that its consequences cannot automatically entail liability without regard to context. This approach allows clients to be protected from retrospective simplification and unjustified personalization of risks.
Retrospective legal qualification of temporary management measures becomes particularly dangerous in times of crisis and instability. The task of Law Consulted is to prevent operational decisions from being turned into sources of tort liability and to preserve the balance between managerial flexibility and legal resilience.
Earlier, we wrote about management decision-making in the absence of an approved strategy and the legal risks faced by executives when choosing operational actions under the LawConsulted approach
