ILNews

Inbox: Sometimes it is enough to be 'good enough'

August 29, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Kelly:

I think the problem is defining the term “all” in your statement “[c]an women in the law really have it all?”  What is your “all?” If your definition is that you tried your best and balanced your own needs, and the needs of others, as best you could, then that should be enough. There is no need for guilt or remorse.

For someone like me, a solo, female attorney with a family, I am constantly balancing the needs of my children, my husband, my work, and my own personal goals. The amount of time and energy I devote to one area is fluid and changes on a daily basis. There are times when almost 100% of my energy needs to be devoted to preparing for a trial. On the other hand, there are days when almost 100% of my energy is devoted to taking care of sick child. It’s a constant balancing act which leads to feeling, on some days, like I’m juggling a bunch of balls that might fall at any moment. But, they’re my balls to juggle. I chose those balls. Most women attorneys I know, who are juggling the same balls, wouldn’t drop a ball for any amount of money that you could offer them.

I tell other women, “you can’t give 100% to every area of your life, at every moment, but you can be ‘good enough.’” I may not be the best attorney, the best wife, or the best mother, every single day, but I’m “good enough” that I can still keep practicing law and paying attention to the needs of those around me as well as my own needs. As women, we have to let go of the guilt that haunts us when can’t devote 100% of our time to our family, our significant others, our personal needs, or our clients. We don’t need to do so. We just need to reframe our thinking on what having it “all” actually means.   

Sincerely,

Patricia L. McKinnon, Esq.
Indianapolis

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT