White House defends new press secretary amid questions about her legal credentials
The White House is defending new press secretary Katie Zacharia amid questions about whether she is entitled to describe herself as a lawyer or attorney. The scrutiny follows President Donald Trump’s introduction of her as an attorney and a reporter’s question about where she had passed the US bar exam; her response did not name a state.
Zacharia graduated from Pepperdine University’s law school in 2011 and took, but did not pass, California’s bar exam, according to the Wall Street Journal. She says she practised international transaction law and was advised she could call herself a lawyer, but not an attorney. A watchdog has asked California’s State Bar to investigate whether she publicly claimed to be entitled to practise law without a licence; the White House says she is qualified for the press secretary role.
- Zacharia’s legal credentials are under scrutiny.
- She graduated from law school but did not pass California’s bar exam.
- A watchdog has asked California’s State Bar to investigate.
New here? Start with this
In the US, completing law school does not by itself qualify someone to practise law: graduates generally need to pass a state bar exam and meet that state’s licensing rules. The terms “lawyer” and “attorney” can also carry different meanings in some contexts, which has prompted questions about Katie Zacharia’s description of her legal background.
Zacharia studied at Pepperdine University’s law school and says she worked in international transaction law. California’s State Bar is the body that regulates lawyers in the state, while the White House press secretary is responsible for speaking to reporters on the administration’s behalf.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The White House can reasonably argue that Zacharia’s legal education and experience in international transactions are relevant qualifications for a communications role, even if she did not pass California’s bar exam. If she was advised that “lawyer” could accurately describe her background while “attorney” implied a licence she did not hold, the distinction may reflect an honest account rather than a claim to be licensed.
The case against
Critics can reasonably argue that calling oneself a lawyer, especially when introduced as an attorney, may lead the public to assume the person is licensed to practise. Given that she did not pass California’s bar exam and did not identify a state where she had passed one, asking for clarification and a State Bar review can serve the public interest and uphold clear professional standards.