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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT