Malfeasance in office

Malfeasance in office, or official misconduct, is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a for cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election.

An exact definition of malfeasance in office is difficult. Many highly regarded secondary sources compete over the elements. This confusion extends to the courts where no single consensus definition of malfeasance in office has arisen. In part, this can be attributed to the relative paucity of reported cases involving malfeasance in office.

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals summarized a number of the definitions of malfeasance in office applied by various appellate courts in the United States.

Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted not, to do.

The court then went on to use yet another definition, "malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all and that when an officer, through ignorance, inattention, or malice, does that which they have no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses their powers, they are guilty of malfeasance."

Nevertheless a few "elements" can be distilled from those cases. First, malfeasance in office requires an affirmative act or omission. Second, the act must have been done in an official capacity—under the color of office. Finally, that that act somehow interferes with the performance of official duties—though some debate remains about "whose official" duties.

In addition, jurisdictions differ greatly over whether intent or knowledge is necessary. As noted above, many courts will find malfeasance in office where there is "ignorance, inattention, or malice", which implies no intent or knowledge is required.

English Law
Under English law, misconduct (or misfeasance) in public office is an offence at common law.

The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines on this offence say that the elements of the offence are when:
 * 1) A public officer acting as such.
 * 2) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.
 * 3) To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.
 * 4) Without reasonable excuse or justification.

The similarly-named malfeasance (or misfeasance) in public office is a tort. In the House of Lords judgement on the BCCI Malfeasance Case it was held that this had 3 essential elements :
 * 1) The defendant must be a public officer
 * 2) The defendant must have been exercising his power as a public officer
 * 3) The defendant is either exercising targeted malice or exceeding his powers.

Notes and references
Dienstvergehen Abuso de autoridad