Do you remember Plato’s Allegory of the Cave? I can’t say that I remember exactly what Plato said, but I know the gist of it. The gist of it is that you may think you know something, but you don’t. It’s like you have lived your life in a cave, and you have only seen shadows on the wall, thinking that you are looking at the real thing. Then, one day you get out of that cave, and see the world as it really is, and you are dumbfounded and can’t believe what you see. At any rate, it’s something like that. And that’s how I am feeling this morning. And it’s all because of Katie Zacharia.
Katie Zacharia is President Trump’s new press secretary, who was booed off the stage after her first, shortened press conference, and whom I think is being treated, not only by the legacy media, very unfairly. As I said before, “Jeez, give the girl a chance”.
But her performance on the stage has been almost eclipsed by confusion as to her credentials. Zacharia is a graduate of the Pepperdine University Law School, took the California bar exam and failed, moved to China with her husband (for her husband’s job), worked at a Chinese law firm for about four years and had four children, and came back to the U.S.
Digression. About 2/3 of first time takers pass the California bar, but a much smaller percentage of those who fail the bar the first time are able to pass it when they take it again. Statistics, and it’s only statistics, would show that if Katie took the bar a second time, the results would have been just as they were the first time, and she would not have passed the bar. End of digression.
But she did not take it again, and that is understandable, as she was moving out of the country. And when she came back to the United States, after a long absence and with four young children, with the odds for passage against her, it is not surprising that she did not retake the exam, and went in a different career direction. I don’t fault her for any of this.
Digression #2. I asked Gemini to name some well known people who failed their first try at a bar exam: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Kathleen Sullivan (she became dean of the Stanford Law School), John F. Kennedy, Jr., Pete Wilson, Jerry Brown, Benjamin Cardozo (he got to the Supreme Court), Charlie Crist, Ed Koch, Richard Daly, Pat Robertson and even Kim Kardashian. End of digression.
But, you ask, what does this have to do with being in a cave? I will try to show you.
The question is whether or not Katie Zacharia, who graduated from Pepperdine Law School and received a J.D., but who sat for but did not pass the California bar exam, is a lawyer or not. A second question, apparently not the same as the first, is whether she is an attorney or not.
Now, I graduated from law school in June 1967. I took the Missouri bar exam in the fall of 1967, and (by hook or crook) passed it, being notified at the very end of that year. Was I a lawyer in June 1967, or not until I was told that I had passed the bar? Was I an attorney in June 1967, or not until I was told that I had passed the bar?
You may know the answer to these questions, but until yesterday (I mean literally yesterday, October 15, 2026), I must have been living in a cave, because it appears that I did not know the answers.
Because the stink about Katie Zacharia focuses on how she represented her credentials and not on the facts of her situation, I was actually surprised to hear her say that she was a lawyer, because she earned a J.D., but she was not an attorney (or an attorney-at-law), because she never passed a bar exam. In the 59 years since I graduated from law school and passed the bar, I had never heard of that distinction (or at least I certainly don’t remember hearing it).
But, I looked it up, and there are all sorts of websites which do make that distinction. They describe it just as Lawyer Katie Zacharia describes it. She is a lawyer. She is not an attorney. You knew that?
But to practice law….you need to be an attorney. Being a lawyer (under these definitions) does not suffice.
Now obviously, there is a lot of case law discussing whether someone is practicing law without a license. I have never looked at these closely (or, in fact, at all), but my guess is that there are quite a number of messy situations that have been decided in conflicting ways. And I bet that most of these cases do not make a distinction between a lawyer and an attorney.
I tried to look up how this distinction arose, and was not satisfied with what I found from a quick look. The two words have different origins, one from English, one from French, and things just sort of evolved as they have. But the evolution is confusing to me (here I am back in the cave, I guess). Some examples:
- So I was sworn into the bar in Missouri in late 1967 or early 1968. I moved to DC in 1969 and shortly after that was waived into the DC bar and sworn in there. About ten years later, I stopped paying my Missouri Bar dues (even my inactive dues), and my membership in the bar in Missouri was terminated. From that time on, I was only a member of the DC bar.
- I retired from law practice in 2012. I decided that I was not going to practice again, so I stopped paying my DC bar dues and was put on “suspended” status, and told that I could reinstate my active membership by paying past bar dues. (That is the same way that Missouri worked, if you were in inactive status, paying reduced dues – I remember when my mother picked up her law practice after some years, and had to pay all of her back dues.)
So what am I?
- By the Zacharia definition (I will call it that for convenience), I am still, and always have been, a lawyer, and there is nothing that I can do about that. I graduated from an accredited law school and that defines me as a lawyer on my, as they say, permanent record.
- In Missouri, I am clearly no longer an attorney under this definition; that status has been terminated.
- But what about DC? I cannot practice law, but my bar membership has only been suspended. Am I still a DC attorney? Is there such a category as a suspended attorney? Or am I not an attorney unless I pay all my past bar dues?
I have been referring to myself as a former lawyer and former attorney (although I never – maybe never ever – use the term attorney). Maybe I am wrong.
The sites that I have looked at contradict each other as to what constitutes the practice of law that requires a licensed attorney. Clearly, appearing in court, or appearing as a attorney of record, does. But what about giving legal advice generally? What if someone who never went to law school helps someone write a will, for example? What if someone who went to law school, but isn’t an active attorney, helps someone write a will. What if Katie Zacharia opens an office called: Zachariah Law Office – Wills and Trusts Exclusively?
Is that practicing law without a license? And is it better or worse if the Zachariah who opens that office has a law degree (and should therefore know better?) or not? Is it clearly wrong if that Zachariah calls herself an attorney, but perhaps okay if she calls herself a lawyer?
Over my 40 year career as a practicing attorney, while I spent some time in court rooms and other formal circumstances, most of my time was spent helping draft documents and letters, trying to negotiate something on behalf of a client, giving advice to clients as to their activities involving various federal agencies, and so forth. There were other lawyers doing the same thing. But there were also “consultants”, who were not lawyers, but were providing advice very similar (in some situations identical) to what I was doing. I often wondered where the line was drawn, if there was any line at all. I have wondered whether, without paying my back dues and reinstating my bar membership, I could go out and start working as a consultant, doing everything I used to do except for those formal settings where bar membership was obviously required.
Doesn’t it seem that, if I know anything, I should know the answers to these types of questions?
And we didn’t even talk about giving someone with no education at all a “power of attorney”, which makes them an “attorney-in-fact”, if not in law.
I am going back into my cave. I seem to have no choice.
And, by the way, what is a “counselor”?































