Once the attorney-client privilege has been established, the trial judge or counsel for any party may not comment on the fact that a party or witness has exercised the privilege.  (Evid. Code 913(a).)  Moreover, the trier of fact may not draw any inference from a witness’s invocation of a privilege.  The court must so instruct the jury upon request.  (Ibid.) This decision reverses a judgment because at trial plaintiff’s attorney was allowed to repeatedly question defense witnesses about their reasons for seeking legal advice, inviting the jury to infer that legal advice was sought to terminate plaintiff shortly after she made her whistleblower complaint.  Plaintiff’s counsel emphasized that point during closing argument.  That put defendants in the untenable position of being able to refute the suggested negative inference only by disclosing attorney-client privileged communications.  The prejudicial effect of the questions and closing argument were not cured by including a standard no-inference instruction in the packet of instructions given the jury at the end of trial.  Curative no-inference instructions should be given during the evidentiary phase of the trial as well as in closing instructions.