Also known as: furtherance of · furtherance
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Conduct or a statement undertaken to advance or promote the objectives of a conspiracy, client crime, governmental interest, or similar undertaking. The phrase identifies the required connection between the act or declaration and the primary goal.
Ibrahim Iqbal and Ines Ibarra agreed to falsify invoices to defraud their employer. Under the common law rule, the conspiracy was complete upon their mutual assent and shared intent even though neither performed any further step.
Isla Ireland told a supplier that the group needed extra packaging materials to conceal the stolen goods. The court admitted the statement against her coconspirator because it was made during and to advance the ongoing scheme.
Integrity Partners' lawyer learned that the client intended to use the lawyer's drafted contract to defraud investors of millions. The lawyer revealed limited information to stop the scheme that relied on the lawyer's services.
Iain Irons burned his draft card at a rally to protest the war. The Court upheld the prohibition because the regulation served an important interest unrelated to expression and the incidental speech restriction was no greater than necessary.
Island Manufacturing and Indigo Textiles disputed ownership of equipment moved across state lines. The court selected the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the property and parties to ensure consistent and predictable outcomes.
Ilana Isaacs agreed with others to commit arson and later tried to withdraw before any building was damaged. The common law treated the offense as complete upon the agreement and any required overt act, so withdrawal supplied no defense.
A statement qualifies when it is made by a coconspirator during the conspiracy and advances the conspiracy's objectives. Courts have interpreted the requirement broadly to include statements that keep members informed, solicit cooperation, or facilitate access to commit the crime. Gossip or statements after the conspiracy has ended do not qualify.
Supporting sources
No. At common law the offense is complete upon the agreement with criminal intent. Jurisdictions that add an overt-act requirement treat that act as merely evidentiary of the agreement rather than an independent element that must be proved for every defendant.
Supporting sources
Yes. Model Rule 1.6(b)(2) permits disclosure when the lawyer reasonably believes it necessary to prevent a client crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to cause substantial financial injury to another and that is furthered by the lawyer's services.
Supporting sources
A law regulating conduct with speech and nonspeech elements is valid if it is within governmental power, furthers an important interest unrelated to suppressing expression, and restricts speech no more than essential to further that interest.
Supporting sources
…clearly revealed in its charter." "It is the responsibility of the Congress . . . to insure that compulsory process is used only in furtherance of a legislative purpose. That requires that the instructions to an investigating committee spell out the group's jurisdiction and purpose with sufficient particularity. . . . The more vague…