In Goldfisher v. Superior Court (1982) 133 Cal. App. 3d 12 [183 Cal. Rptr. 609], Division Two of our court agreed that a successor lawyer cannot sue his predecessor for indemnity, refusing to adopt a rule that would "encourage claims of indemnification where two lawyers successively represented the same client . . . . Differences between lawyer and client respecting malpractice should be limited to themselves. The facts which generally germinate the relief sought at bench are pregnant with the seed of exacerbated conflict. The inevitable consequence is a corrosion of the sacred attributes of complete confidentiality and undivided loyalty which are the heart of the relationship between lawyer and client." (Id. at p. 22.)