John D. Ayer, University of California at Davis I would like to offer a presentation on some experiences in teaching finance concepts for lawyers. Over the past 10 years, I've developed a course in this stuff: The course is distinctive (though I wouldn't say unique) in that I make them use calculators, or spreadsheets & do weekly problem sheets. I have in press (at Bender) a book to be called Finance Concepts for Lawyers. I also have handouts, problem sheets, etc., that are not in the book. In particular, in lieu of a handout, I attach a set of Excel spreadsheets that help illustrate some of the subject matter in the course. I can't really claim any great pedagogic innovation here, but the course is somewhat distinctive in that the students are regularly writing -- and I grading -- homework as one might in an undergraduate math or science class, less often in a law class. Much of the pedagogic challenge for me has been to learn to cope with the numbers stuff (my own math skills are in truth rather modest) and more particularly to cope with a diverse array of student backgrounds -- some students who have quite a bit of background with numbers, some of whom have none. A second challenge is the question where it fits in the curriculum. I remarked lately to a colleague that I thought of it as an introduction to corporate finance (among other things) because it explained the concepts that one needed before one took the course. He responded that in fact it was a course in advanced corporate finance insofar as it explains just how the deals get done. A third challenge is the question of how it relates to the curriculum of the business school. We have a joint degree program with the MBA program on campus and in any event, students can cross-register for business school classes. Colleagues have asked whether there is any point in our offering what they can (presumptively?) do better. I think I have an answer to that question although I concede that it is a question that requires an answer. I say the course isn't unique: in fact I know that versions of it are being (or have been) taught by Bernie Black at Stanford, Mike Wachter at Penn, and surely others. I have it is becoming more common, perhaps as part of the general blurring of disciplines that we witness in the profession. I'd be delighted for an opportunity to explore the possibilities with others at a conference like this.