Malfeasance Meaning: Wrongful Conduct and Its Legal Consequences

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, financial, or tax advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading it. Laws, regulations, official guidance, and related information vary by jurisdiction, change frequently, and may have changed or become outdated since publication. Always verify current information with authoritative sources and consult a qualified professional about your specific circumstances. The author and publisher assume no liability for actions taken based on this information.

Malfeasance means wrongful conduct, not merely a poor result

In ordinary legal usage, malfeasance means an intentional wrongful or unlawful act. The word often appears in connection with officials or public employees. It focuses on the nature of the conduct, not simply on whether the outcome was disappointing or harmful.

Malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance describe different failures

Three related terms help separate an unlawful act from a badly performed act and a failure to act:

• Malfeasance generally means committing a wrongful or unlawful act.
• Misfeasance generally means performing an otherwise lawful act improperly.
• Nonfeasance generally means failing to act when a legal duty requires action.

The distinctions can matter, but statutes do not always use the words in exactly the same way. Washington’s recall law, for example, first places misfeasance and malfeasance within the shared category of wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts, or interferes with official duty. It then identifies improper performance of a duty as misfeasance and commission of an unlawful act as malfeasance.

Nonfeasance also depends on duty. In civil law, a failure to prevent harm does not automatically create liability; the law must recognize an affirmative duty to act in the particular relationship or circumstances. That is one reason a plain allegation that someone “did nothing” does not, by itself, resolve a legal claim.

Malfeasance is not automatically a criminal charge

Louisiana illustrates a criminal use of the term. Revised Statutes section 14:134 applies to a public officer or public employee who intentionally refuses or fails to perform a lawfully required duty, intentionally performs such a duty unlawfully, or knowingly permits another public officer or employee under that person’s authority to do so. The general penalty is imprisonment for up to ten years, a fine of up to $5,000, or both, with additional provisions for restitution and revocation of a peace officer’s certification.

New York uses different language. Penal Law section 195.00 calls the offense “official misconduct” and requires a public servant to act with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit. The statute covers a knowing unauthorized exercise of official functions or knowingly refraining from a legally imposed or inherent duty, and classifies the offense as a class A misdemeanor.

The Louisiana and New York statutes use different offense names and require different conduct and mental states. Related concepts such as fraud have their own governing definitions.

Public-office laws use malfeasance for more than punishment

Florida’s Constitution allows the governor, by a filed executive order stating the grounds, to suspend specified officers for malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, drunkenness, incompetence, permanent inability to perform official duties, or commission of a felony. The Florida Senate may later remove or reinstate the suspended official through proceedings prescribed by law.

Washington uses malfeasance in the recall process for elected public officers. A recall charge must describe the complained-of acts, including their approximate date, location, and nature, and must be verified under oath. The statute’s definition ties malfeasance to an unlawful act affecting official duty, which is more specific than using the word as a general criticism.

Malfeasance can also appear in civil disputes

In tort law, malfeasance may distinguish active conduct that creates a risk from nonfeasance, or a failure to protect someone from a risk the defendant did not create. That distinction can affect the duty analysis, but it does not replace the ordinary elements of a civil claim.

A fuller explanation of a related duty-based claim appears in the overview of negligence law.

In business settings, people may use “corporate malfeasance” as descriptive language for unethical or illegal wrongdoing.

What matters when the term appears in a legal record

Several questions help identify the legal context in which the word appears:

• Which constitution, statute, regulation, court rule, contract, or common-law claim governs?
• Does the rule apply only to a public officer, public employee, fiduciary, or another defined actor?
• What duty or official function is alleged to have been violated?
• Does the rule require intentional, knowing, willful, reckless, or merely negligent conduct?
• Is the proceeding criminal, civil, administrative, disciplinary, recall-related, or removal-related?
• What remedy or consequence does that particular rule authorize?

Sources

• Cornell Legal Information Institute definition of malfeasance
• Cornell Legal Information Institute definition of misfeasance
• Cornell Legal Information Institute definition of nonfeasance
• Washington Revised Code section 29A.56.110 on recall charges and malfeasance
• Florida Constitution Article IV, section 7 on officer suspension
• Louisiana Revised Statutes section 14:134 on malfeasance in office
• New York Penal Law section 195.00 on official misconduct