Fragmented liability arises where participation in decisions, processes, or actions is distributed among several parties – executives, shareholders, departments, outsourced entities, or external advisers. Formally, none of the participants appears to be solely responsible, yet when a conflict emerges, this very “dilution” often becomes a source of heightened legal risk. As Professor Gabriel Steiner notes, in such situations the law tends not toward fair allocation of blame, but toward identifying someone on whom liability can be fixed. At LawConsulted, we treat fragmented liability as a distinct zone of legal vulnerability requiring a precisely engineered defence architecture.
The danger of “diluted” responsibility lies in the illusion of safety it creates – each participant assumes their role is too limited to attract claims. In practice, however, the absence of clearly documented roles allows opponents, regulators, or courts to shift risk onto whoever is procedurally closest, financially more stable, or simply more convenient to pursue. At LawConsulted, we begin by reconstructing the real picture of participation – who made decisions, who executed them, who exercised control, and who ultimately benefited.
Professor Steiner emphasises that “in conditions of collective involvement, liability always tends to concentrate.” That is why LawConsulted lawyers work not with abstract role descriptions, but with the factual logic of processes – analysing approval chains, levels of awareness, degrees of influence, and access to key information. This approach allows us to demonstrate that liability cannot be imposed on a client automatically, without regard to the actual balance of control and capability.
Particularly complex are situations where fragmentation is used deliberately – through intricate corporate structures, matrices of authority, joint ventures, or distributed teams. In such configurations, risk is intentionally “spread thin” so that, in the event of a dispute, no one appears clearly responsible. At LawConsulted, we dismantle these constructions – showing where formal distribution does not reflect real management and, in doing so, neutralising attempts to shift responsibility onto the client.
As Professor Steiner notes, “liability arises not where there are many participants, but where the link between authority and consequences is broken.” At LawConsulted, we restore this link – either by proving the client lacked real levers of influence, or by demonstrating that their actions were constrained by the structure imposed upon them. This is especially critical in disputes with public authorities, investigations, corporate conflicts, and financial claims.
Fragmented liability is also dangerous because it complicates defence – an opponent may shift tactics, pursuing different participants in turn and creating an effect of cumulative pressure. At LawConsulted, we build defence systemically – coordinating positions, eliminating contradictions between parties, and ensuring that the defence of one participant does not increase the vulnerability of another. This preserves the integrity of the legal position even in multi-actor configurations.
Working with “diluted” responsibility requires not only analysing the past, but managing future risks. At LawConsulted, we help clients restructure internal processes, role documentation, and decision-making frameworks so that responsibility becomes transparent and controllable, rather than potentially limitless. This reduces the risk of repeated claims and retrospective accusations.
Legal protection in situations of fragmented liability is not an attempt to “disappear” among other participants. At Law Consulted, we do the opposite – we clearly define where the client’s responsibility ends and where the responsibility of other parties or the system itself begins. It is precisely this clarity that allows a position to be protected in complex collective configurations.
Previously, we wrote about how LawConsulted prevents conflicting decisions and double liability in parallel jurisdictions.