By now, you may have seen the headlines about Katie Zacharia’s bar exam. The controversy picked up steam when a reporter asked President Donald Trump which state his new press secretary had passed the bar exam in. Trump turned to Zacharia, who answered, “When I moved to China.” She later said she had misheard the question as asking where she was after law school.
But the exchange brought a bigger question to the briefing room: Can someone who never passed the bar call herself a lawyer?
Yesterday, Zacharia acknowledged that she took California’s exam and failed. She maintains that she worked in international transaction law with the appropriate credentials and says she was careful to distinguish “lawyer” from “attorney at law.” Does that distinction get her off the hook? Not necessarily.
To understand why, it helps to look beyond the titles. California’s law is more concerned with the authority someone claims than the title they choose. But an awkward answer isn’t a legal verdict. The more revealing questions concern what Zacharia told the public, what work she actually performed, and whether she was authorized to do it.
A Degree Isn’t a License
Let’s start with the distinction between education and authorization. We’ve previously explained the difference between J.D., Esq., lawyer, and attorney. The short version: A J.D. establishes that someone graduated from law school. It does not, by itself, authorize them to practice law. As for how she could describe that background, Zacharia, a graduate of Pepperdine University’s law school, reportedly sought advice about this distinction before her television appearances. According to her account, Pepperdine’s president warned her against using “attorney” or “esquire” but said “lawyer” was acceptable.
The governing standard, however, comes from California Business and Professions Code section 6126. Someone without the required authorization can commit a misdemeanor by practicing law or “holding” themselves out as practicing or entitled to practice. The statute provides for up to one year in county jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.
Notice the “or.” Prosecutors would not necessarily have to establish that someone represented a client. A claim of entitlement to practice could be enough, depending on what the statements conveyed in context.
What About In-House Counsel?
Beyond her public statements, Zacharia’s résumé raises another question. Watchdog group Campaign for Accountability, who is seeking an investigation, says she listed herself as general counsel of Fix California from January 2024 to March 2025. Could working in-house have allowed her to practice without joining California’s bar? Potentially – but there’s an important catch.
California’s registered in-house counsel program lets qualifying attorneys provide legal services to their employer without taking California’s bar exam. They must, however, maintain an active license in another U.S. jurisdiction, register with the State Bar, and satisfy other requirements. The exception is for lawyers licensed elsewhere…not law graduates licensed nowhere.
Even for those who qualify, the permission is limited. Registered in-house counsel generally may represent their qualifying employer, not provide individual representation to its executives or employees, and cannot make California state-court appearances under that registration alone.
For Zacharia, the threshold requirement presents a problem: On the publicly reported record, no U.S. license has been identified. She therefore has not established that she qualifies for this exception. Whether Zacharia needed authorization depends on what her general-counsel work involved.
You Don’t Need a Courtroom to Practice Law
To answer that question, remember that practicing law isn’t limited to representing clients in court. California’s Supreme Court has explained that practicing law includes legal advice and preparing legal instruments and contracts, even outside litigation. In a 1998 decision involving New York lawyers advising a California business, the court found unauthorized practice and barred recovery under their fee agreement for the unauthorized California services. These were licensed lawyers—just not authorized for the work at issue.
Applied to Zacharia, that distinction makes her actual responsibilities important. Fundraising or communications work would present a different factual question from advising Fix California on its legal obligations. Campaign for Accountability specifically asked the State Bar to investigate whether her general-counsel duties amounted to unauthorized practice.
Nor would her overseas experience settle the California question. Whether her work in China was properly authorized depends on the work and applicable rules there. Whatever the answer, it would not automatically establish permission to practice in California.
Can the Bar Investigate Non-Members?
Returning to her California work, Campaign for Accountability’s complaint raises another question: If Zacharia was never licensed, can the State Bar investigate her? The short answer is “yes.” There need not be a license to revoke for regulators to get involved.
In fact, California’s State Bar investigates unauthorized practice by nonattorneys and works with law enforcement. Depending on what an investigation establishes, its responses can include cease-and-desist letters or court action to shut down an unlawful practice.
So the absence of a bar membership is the subject of the inquiry, not an obstacle to conducting one. But the complaint against Zacharia remains an allegation, not a finding that she committed a crime.
A New Job Doesn’t Settle the Old Questions
Zacharia doesn’t need a law degree or license to speak for the president, and explaining the administration’s legal position to reporters is not the same as serving as its legal counsel. But that doesn’t settle whether she previously claimed authority she lacked. The question isn’t whether she can stand behind the White House podium. It’s whether she was entitled to present herself as a lawyer before she got there.
