I feel like the author is using one part of her story to excuse other unrelated decisions. Sure, defending a man she believes was improperly convicted and a vic

I feel like the author is using one part of her story to excuse other unrelated decisions. Sure, defending a man she believes was improperly convicted and a victim of racism is important. Very important. It seems perfectly reasonable to weigh that responsibility against that she owes to her kids (though I might still make the opposite choice myself). But another student to teach? Another story to write? Nope. Other people can do one, and the other might not need to be done at all. The incremental benefit to anyone but the author herself is minimal, compared to the major incremental benefit of being there for her children. Which brings us to this. > If I didn’t write and teach and litigate, a part of me would feel empty. This sounds like the real reason, and it's not a bad one. Self-care is important. It's hard to be a good parent (or spouse BTW) if you're not a healthy person. But that's a different argument from the one about all of one's work being important to others. Some seems to be, and some less so. When a facile reason is given, even if good reasons also exist, it seems like unhealthy rationalization. But then, picking and promoting a most favorable narrative is exactly what trial lawyers do. I guess it's an easy trap to fall into. I just hope she's right that the choice to favor her career really will prove most fulfilling in the longer term.