In Chapman v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 261, a former public agency board member pleaded guilty to willfully violating Government Code section 1090, which bars board members from having financial interests in a contract involving their agencies. (Chapman, at p. 266.) He sued his agency and its in-house counsel for providing negligent advice concerning the improper business relationships. (Id. at p. 270.) The court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to enter summary judgment for the defendants. (Id. at p. 278.) It noted, "For public policy reasons, courts may preclude particular types of actions," citing PPG Industries, Inc. v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 310. (Chapman, at p. 275.) Holding that intentional wrongdoers should not shift liability to merely negligent attorneys, it observed, "'although the public interest is served by discouraging attorney misconduct,' a 'court should not encourage others to commit illegal acts upon their lawyer's advice by allowing the perpetrators to believe that a suit against the attorney will allow them to obtain relief from any damage they might suffer if caught.'" (Id. at p. 277.) Thus, "allegations that the lawyer's negligent advice caused the client to commit a crime and plead guilty are immaterial, as the client cannot obtain indemnity for his willful criminal wrongdoing." (Id. at p. 276.)