We might be a bit late to this discussion — it’s been over two weeks since Northwestern Law announced a minor overhaul in their curriculum. In short, NU has decided, after much feedback from managing partners, that finance, statistics, strategy, communications, and project management skills should be included in the legal curriculum. There’s also a two year substantive work experience requirement between undergrad and law school to apply.

Unsurprisingly, the reactions are mixed. Bruce MacEwen and Jordan Furlong took up the discussion with measured analysis and reporting, with Inside Higher Ed and TaxProf Blog providing considered insight as well. Comments at Above the Law were unsurprisingly less thoughtful yet surprisingly (considering a presumably younger audience) more pessimistic about its benefits.

I’m still sitting on the fence. On the one hand I applaud the move, both because I’d like to think I would have been drawn to such a curriculum, but also because solid business skills are crucial to understanding the real scope and strategies involved with clients problems. Moreover, the statistics and finance components are intriguing because I would hope it signals an increased focus on quantifying the value of legal services.

On another level, though, I’m wondering what would attract students to this type of program, and skeptical that the actual practice of law within the large firms advocating this shift will change with it. For myself, the attraction would have been that the skills developed would enable me to do more in my law degree than just practice law. As I started researching (belatedly) what attorneys do day to day, even in highly quant oriented areas like derivatives and tax, is not particularly strategic, certainly not in the junior ranks.

I started taking courses at the business school and studying on my own as a means of ensuring I would be marketable in areas outside of the law, which promised greater creativity and a better risk/reward equation. My hunch is that I’m not alone, particularly among law school grads who would be wooed from law to banking / PE / management consulting or into even more entrepreneurial pursuits. Unless the actual practice of law becomes more innovative and creative, with more client contact and advisory experience early on, I wonder if a larger move like this would actually exacerbate associate attrition.

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that the big firms in favor of this shift are willing to reexamine their business models. No doubt their support is a proxy for clients’ outrage over arguably exorbitant associate salaries and a lack of confidence in attorneys’ actual understanding of their businesses. Hiring a graduate of this program presumably allows the firm to justify its fees under the guise that associates have a better understanding of their businesses. That isn’t enough.

Hopefully I’m wrong. Maybe this is a chicken or egg situation, whereby more well-rounded business attorneys enable a changing firm structure. I’m willing to bet, though, on increased attrition from firms, and continued success of smaller, more nimble firms which embrace the Creative Class, or the Conceptual Age, or the Millenials, or whatever we’re calling them these days.