Well, this has been fun.
When the media hysteria erupted over Katie Zacharia’s claim that she’s a “lawyer,” I recalled learning some years ago that there is a technical distinction between “attorney” and “lawyer.” As I noted, the terms are often used interchangeably these days. But I thought she was not wrong to label herself a “lawyer” since, as I understood it, “lawyer” applies to someone who has completed a legal education, and Zacharia earned a JD from Pepperdine Law School. I also noted that she could not claim to be an attorney, since she is not licensed in any jurisdiction.
To be sure that my recollection was correct, I looked into the question and found many sources stating that very thing. Here’s one. There are plenty more. I also asked AI to verify. It did. Perhaps it was the way I phrased the inquiry.
I have since been barraged with many angry tirades on social media. Some people run on rage, I guess.
But some were substantive responses, which I appreciate because I always want to be accurate. I am especially thankful to Shannen W. Coffin for his informed rebuttal (and kind words). To say the least, my assertion that Zacharia is “unquestionably” a lawyer is, as the old Watergate phrase had it, “no longer operative.” Clearly, some jurisdictions have erased that (perhaps now archaic) technical distinction by statute.
I wrote about this — which is outside of my usual areas of concern — because I am growing weary of the mainstream media’s many moral panics that heap vituperation on people’s heads, often for very little cause. And since Zacharia is not going to provide legal advice or counsel in her role at the White House, I thought the controversy over her past biographical statements to be “much ado about very little.” I mostly still do.
But: I also believe that Jim Geraghty’s concerns about Zacharia’s work in China are well founded. She owes the country a deeper explanation (assuming she survives in the job).
In summary, I stand corrected.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.