According to commentary around the Priestley 11, the core mandated subjects of the accredited Australian law degree are either a dead hand, or a ‘surprisingly light hand’. Despite a recent review of the formulation of the Priestley subjects, there has been no change. In the absence of a significant—and likely consensus—shift in the approach to law school accreditation, the Priestleys look to retain their longstanding formulation into the foreseeable future. Partly this is due to an ingrained textbook tradition of the law, that for many in the academy, the profession, and the judiciary, makes it is difficult to imagine a ‘coherent body of discipline knowledge’ of the law in any other way. And partly it is fear of creating an alternative and more onerous and intrusive form of law school regulation that would regulate pedagogy and broader educational aims. Between the framing of the mandated curriculum and the unbundling, globalisation, and ‘technologization’ of legal services, what is a lawyer in the 21st century? What type of lawyer is the mandated curriculum serving? Assuming that legal education continues to serve the administration of justice, the underlying question, and the focus of this research, is whether it is possible that alternative law curricula might also serve society and the administration of justice through diverse conceptualisations of the threshold knowledge and skills of the graduate lawyer. The Priestley 11 mandatory knowledge areas are determined by the judiciary, embodied in legislation, and enforced by the practitioners’ admissions boards in each state and territory. They are also looking increasingly dated. In the US an American Bar Association committee recommended a significant reduction in the number of areas of law in the Bar Examination – the core of the US admission process. The UK admission requirements now see doctrinal knowledge as part of a more applied approach to legal practice. Given Australia’s top-down and dated approach to the accredited law curriculum, this chapter critiques the current curriculum regulations and reports on a project of collective reimagination of the core law curriculum — ‘hacking’ the Priestleys. In describing the variety of responses to an ‘ideal’ law curriculum, it highlights diverse conceptions of what it means to be a graduate lawyer in the context of rapid and paradigmatic social, economic, environmental, political and technological change. Part II outlines the influence of the Priestley 11 on the Australian law curriculum, and its inherent relationship with the essence of what it means to be a lawyer. Part III describes the project we undertook to ‘hack’ the Priestleys. Part IV discusses the outcomes of the project, before concluding.