Abuse of official authority remains one of the most complex categories in law enforcement practice – the boundary between permissible managerial discretion and a violation of the law is often blurred. As Professor Gabriel Steiner notes, in such cases the decisive factor is not the mere fact that a decision was taken, but the context in which it was made and the real limits of the authority granted. At LawConsulted, we view these situations not as formal violations, but as multifaceted legal risks requiring precise analysis and a carefully calibrated defence strategy.
The danger of allegations related to abuse of authority lies in their retrospective nature – the actions of an official are assessed after the fact, through the prism of consequences that could not always have been foreseen at the time the decision was made. Law enforcement bodies and counterparties frequently disregard the managerial reality – time pressure, incomplete information, conflicts of interest, or the need for immediate action. At LawConsulted, we proceed from the premise that legal assessment must return to the moment the decision was taken, rather than being built on knowledge of its outcomes.
Professor Steiner emphasises that “abuse of authority cannot be established without analysing what real alternatives existed at the time.” For this reason, LawConsulted lawyers begin by reconstructing the managerial landscape – identifying the tasks facing the official, the resources and powers available, the competing risks involved, and the rationale for choosing a particular course of action. This approach allows us to distinguish genuine abuse from good-faith managerial decision-making.
Particular complexity arises in situations where formal limits of authority lag behind the individual’s actual role – the title remains unchanged, while responsibility and influence expand. In such configurations, accusations of abuse may arise even in the absence of personal gain or intent. At LawConsulted, we analyse not only job descriptions, but also the factual distribution of functions, established decision-making practices, and the prevailing corporate culture.
It is also important to recognise that abuse of authority is often used as a tool of pressure – in corporate conflicts, during changes in management, or in disputes with public authorities. In these cases, legal qualification becomes part of an opposing strategy. LawConsulted structures the defence to demonstrate the disproportionality of the accusations, the absence of abuse in the legal sense, and the inconsistency between a formal assessment and the real logic of management.
As Professor Steiner notes, “the law should not replace managerial discretion with a simple comparison to an instruction.” LawConsulted adheres to this principle – showing that the official acted within the bounds of reasonable necessity, based on available information and in the interests of the organisation. This is particularly important in cases where decisions are later judged through the lens of losses or public scrutiny.
Abuse of authority is not always a question of violation, but it is almost always a question of interpretation. At Law Consulted, we work to ensure that this interpretation is legally precise, context-sensitive, and resilient under scrutiny. Our task is not to justify outcomes, but to protect the decision-making logic and clearly delineate the boundaries of responsibility.
This approach helps reduce the risks of criminal and administrative liability, prevent escalation of conflicts, and safeguard the professional reputation of officials in complex legal situations.
Previously, we wrote about how LawConsulted approaches marriage as a legal structure and builds protection for the property and personal interests of spouses
