Willow BergeronPresident Donald Trump announced on October 9, 2026 that Katie Zacharia, a communications adviser at Trump Media & Technology Group, will become the next White House press secretary, succeeding Karoline Leavitt. According to the Associated Press, a LinkedIn profile lists a law degree from Pepperdine University, which the AP did not independently confirm.
What readers are asking: does a lawyer-turned-spokesperson change the rules?
The appointment has raised a practical question well beyond Washington. When someone trained in law speaks for an organization, are their words protected, and who is liable if a statement goes wrong?
Variety reports that Zacharia has also appeared as a commentator on CNN and once served as general counsel to Fix California, a conservative advocacy group founded by Ric Grenell. The AP adds that she briefly worked as a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson earlier in 2026 and has commented on Fox News and Newsmax.
Her record shows how often legal and communications roles now overlap. Canadian businesses face the same overlap whenever an in-house lawyer, a founder or a consultant becomes the public voice of a company.
The Canadian rule: privilege protects advice, not press statements
In Canada, solicitor-client privilege covers confidential communications made to obtain or give legal advice. It does not cover a public statement, a media quote or a social media post, even when a licensed lawyer wrote it.
A lawyer who acts as spokesperson is therefore doing communications work in that moment. Internal emails where the same person drafts a public message and also gives legal advice can blur the line, and a court may later decide that only part of the file is privileged.
Three practical consequences follow for any Canadian organization:
- Keep legal advice and public messaging in separate documents and separate email threads.
- Name who is speaking for the company in writing, and limit the number of authorized voices.
- Have counsel review a statement before release when it names a person, a competitor or a regulatory matter.
Defamation exposure does not depend on the speaker's title
A public statement that harms a named person's reputation can lead to a defamation claim, regardless of whether the speaker is a lawyer, a manager or a hired publicist. Both the speaker and the organization can be named as defendants.
Ontario's Libel and Slander Act sets a short clock for complaints about published libel. Under that statute, a plaintiff must give written notice to the defendant within six weeks of learning of the alleged libel, and the notice must specify the words complained of. The full text is on the Ontario e-Laws website. Other provinces have their own rules, so the deadline depends on where the claim is brought.
Ontario also has an anti-SLAPP mechanism in section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. It lets a defendant ask a judge to dismiss a lawsuit early when it targets expression on a matter of public interest. A court will weigh whether the claim has substantial merit and whether the public interest in protecting the expression outweighs the harm alleged. Success is not automatic, and the analysis is fact-specific.
A concrete case: a 40-employee Ontario company and one social media post
Take a Toronto software company with 40 employees. Its in-house counsel, who also handles media requests, posts a statement on October 20, 2026 saying a former contractor "misappropriated client data." The contractor disputes this, and no court or regulator has made any finding.
If the contractor learns of the post on October 22, then the six-week notice window under the Libel and Slander Act runs to roughly December 3, 2026. If the contractor sends a notice by that date, the company has to decide quickly between a correction, a retraction or a defence.
If the company's statement can be shown to be true, or is an honest opinion on a matter of public interest, then it has defences. If it cannot support "misappropriated" with documents, then it is exposed. A damages claim in a case like this can run from a modest five-figure settlement to a much larger award, depending on reach, proof of harm and the conduct of the defendant after notice.
If the post was reviewed by outside counsel before release, then the company would have likely softened the wording to "alleged" and cited an ongoing review. That one word change often decides whether a dispute stays a letter exchange or becomes a lawsuit.
Legal costs matter too. Even a defended defamation case can take many months and consume tens of thousands of dollars in fees before any trial. An hour of review before publishing costs a small fraction of that.
What happens after a complaint arrives
The first 72 hours after a complaint letter usually shape the outcome. Many organizations react by deleting the post, which can look like an admission and may raise questions about preserving evidence. A better first step is to keep a copy of the original, record who approved it and when, and pause further comment on the subject.
From there, counsel typically weighs three paths. A prompt, carefully worded correction can limit the damages a plaintiff claims. A defence on truth or honest opinion needs documents, so those should be gathered immediately. A negotiated retraction and settlement can close the matter without a hearing, although the terms still need to be written carefully so they do not create a new statement of their own.
Insurance is worth checking at this stage. Some commercial general liability and cyber policies cover defamation or "personal and advertising injury" claims, but they often require prompt notice to the insurer. Missing that notice can cost a company coverage it would otherwise have had.
Why the speaker's credentials do not shield the organization
Public attention on a new press secretary will likely focus on politics. For Canadian readers, the lasting lesson is simpler: credentials do not create immunity.
Employment contracts also matter. Employees who speak publicly on behalf of an employer should have clear written authority, confidentiality terms and social media policies. Without them, disputes arise over who approved a statement and whether personal posts bind the company.
Regulated professionals add another layer. Members of a provincial law society have professional conduct duties, including confidentiality toward clients, which continue when they act in a communications role. A lawyer who discloses client information in a press statement may face regulatory consequences as well as civil ones.
What to do before your next public statement
Smaller organizations are often the most exposed, because one person tends to wear several hats and nobody else reads the draft. Even a simple second-reader rule, where a colleague checks every statement that names someone outside the company, closes much of that gap.
A short checklist can prevent most avoidable disputes:
- Confirm the facts in writing and keep the supporting documents.
- Avoid presenting allegations as established findings.
- Identify the speaker and their authority.
- Keep legal advice out of the public message and out of shared communication threads.
- Calendar any deadline, such as the six-week notice period, the moment a complaint arrives.
This article is general information, not legal advice. Defamation, privilege and employment rules vary by province and by facts. A lawyer who practises media, employment or business law can review a draft statement, assess a complaint you have received or set up a communications policy. Expert Zoom connects Canadians with verified legal experts who can help before a statement is published or after a dispute begins.
