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.
this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
61 points (94.2% liked)
Ask Lemmy
31148 readers
2418 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
Lawfare
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.