In James v. Leigh, 145 So. 3d 1006 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014), the parties were former law partners. They entered into an agreement that included a mutual non-disparagement clause. Later, James recited disparaging facts about Leigh in a motion James filed in his ongoing divorce case. Specifically, in seeking to set aside a marital settlement agreement, James alleged that his earnings had declined because Leigh had fired him and James's expectation that he would take over the law practice, because Leigh was facing disciplinary action, proved unfounded when the disciplinary proceedings against Leigh were dismissed. Leigh brought a contract action against James, alleging that he breached the non-disparagement clause of their agreement by including derogatory information about him in the motion filed in the divorce case. James moved to dismiss, invoking the absolute litigation privilege. The court denied the motion. James noted an interlocutory appeal, challenging that ruling. Before the appellate court, Leigh argued that the absolute litigation privilege did not protect James from liability for breaching the non-disparagement clause because, by entering into an agreement that included a non-disparagement clause, James had waived the absolute litigation privilege. In other words, without an exception in the non-disparagement clause for words spoken or written in the course of a judicial proceeding, the absolute litigation privilege was waived. The appellate court rejected the waiver argument and held that the absolute litigation privilege applied. It observed that as a matter of law "'an individual cannot waive a right designed to protect both the individual and the public.'" Id. at 1008-09 (quoting Chames v. DeMayo, 972 So. 2d 850, 860 (Fla. 2007)). It concluded that because the absolute litigation privilege protects a public right, an individual cannot waive it: Since the absolute litigation privilege is a firmly established right of immunity designed to protect the public by ensuring the free and full disclosure of facts in the conduct of judicial proceedings, we conclude the parties' non-disparagement agreement could not be construed as a waiver of the privilege. Id. at 1009.