For recruitment professionals like Martha Heller, questions regarding the legal qualifications of White House Press Secretary Katie Zakaria are a part of their job.

A few years ago, after a background check failed to verify the college education of a senior executive candidate, Heller raised doubts about this discrepancy. The candidate was competing for a position at an insurance company in California and claimed that the school records from the year he graduated had been destroyed due to a flood. Heller expressed skepticism about this and called the university, only to learn that such an incident never occurred.

“It’s just like detective work,” she said, adding that the issue wasn’t whether the candidate truly held a university degree, but rather that he had misrepresented his educational background and persisted in that claim even when questioned further.

White House Controversy

Zakaria's self-described legal career experience has come under close scrutiny in recent days since she was appointed as the White House Press Secretary. When asked by a reporter which state's bar exam she passed, she replied, "When I moved to China."

Business Insider reviewed the records of all 50 states in the United States and the District of Columbia and found no evidence that Zakaria was permitted to join any state bar after obtaining his law degree from Pepperdine University in 2011.

Thereafter, Zakaria defended her claim to be a lawyer, stating that after failing her first bar exam, she did not take the second one. She said that for "a long time," she consulted professionals in the legal field, who told her that it was acceptable to refer to herself as a lawyer and to provide "legal analysis rather than legal advice."

White House communications director Steven Zhang stated earlier this week that Zakaria “has unique qualifications and is very intelligent; she will be able to help the American people understand all the great work that President Trump and his administration have been doing, and she will perform exceptionally well in the role of press secretary.”

Verify resume

One of the tasks of recruiters is to verify the background of candidates. Research shows that it is not uncommon for candidates to exaggerate their qualifications.

A report released in June this year by online resume creation service providers Novor and sum shows that approximately 37% of Americans have stated that they have included inaccurate information on their resumes. Among them, nearly 7% claimed to have listed degrees, certifications, or other qualifications that they did not actually possess, and 6.1% indicated that they had included work experiences that either did not exist or were largely fabricated. The results are based on a survey conducted in May this year among 2,000 American adults.

Brian Fink, the managing partner of technology recruitment firm The ReWork Group, strongly agrees with this. He said that last year, a candidate applying for a senior marketing position at a cybersecurity company was nearly hired, but a background check failed to confirm that he had worked at a company listed as a past employer in his resume and LinkedIn records.

Fink said that he had given this candidate the opportunity to provide evidence to support their claims, but they refused.

"I have no other choice but to withdraw the offer of employment," Fink said, "If you're willing to lie about your educational background, then in what other aspects are you willing to lie?"

Background Check

Recruiters usually wait until candidates reach the final shortlist stage before conducting background checks, as this process is both time-consuming and costly. They also tend to delay contacting references to prevent the candidate's current employer from becoming aware that they are looking for a new job too early. However, in the earlier stages of the process, some recruiters look for potential red flags by questioning inconsistencies in work experience or gaps in employment history.

Doug Johnson, the CEO of executive search firm Valor Partners, stated that he would ask candidates at the end of interviews about any past incidents that could be embarrassing or potentially have a negative impact, as these might come to light during background checks or references verifications. He would inform them that if such information is disclosed now, there would be an opportunity to explain it to potential employers; however, if it is discovered later on, it could result in losing the job.

Johnson said that most candidates would say there was nothing to worry about. However, some of them then lost contact, while others suddenly claimed to have received a raise or found other better opportunities.

"This will worry those who still have a conscience," he said.