The shelf behind the course.

The thinking the course is built on — bias, statistics, verification, and computational thinking — each mapped to the modules it feeds.

• May Contain Lies

  2024

  Alex Edmans

  Source of the Ladder of Misinference (statement to fact to data to evidence to proof) and the line that smart people are better at biased search; the course-wide answer-decoder. A hallucinated citation is a statement costumed as binding proof.

• Thinking, Fast and Slow

  2011

  Daniel Kahneman

  Source for cognitive bias material (anchoring, confirmation bias) mapped onto both legal judgment and LLM failure modes. Module 3.

• Noise

  2021

  Kahneman, Sibony & Sunstein

  On noise in judgment (identical cases, different sentences) applied to judges; Module 3.

• Weapons of Math Destruction

  2016

  Cathy O'Neil

  Key source for Module 7 (law of AI): algorithmic bias and due process.

• Hello World

  2018

  Hannah Fry

  Demystifies algorithms; used in Module 2 and Module 7; source of the centaur-chess idea referenced in Module 8.

• You Look Like a Thing and I Love You

  2019

  Janelle Shane

  Accessible, funny on-ramp to how AI fails (giraffing; recipes calling for broken glass; the tank/sunny-day shortcut). Module 2.

• The Art of Statistics

  2019

  David Spiegelhalter

  Base rates and the Harold Shipman detection; Module 3 statistics-in-evidence material.

• How to Lie with Statistics

  1954

  Darrell Huff

  Statistical-misuse source; teach the credibility irony (Huff's tobacco work).

• Calling Bullshit

  2020

  Bergstrom & West

  Verification heuristics: who's telling me this, how do they know, what are they selling. Module 4.

• Science Fictions

  2020

  Stuart Ritchie

  On research-integrity failures; supports the credibility-irony teaching (e.g. the Ariely fabrication scandal).

• Computational Thinking, CACM 49(3)

  2006

  Jeannette Wing

  Foundational CT source; quote (under 15 words): computational thinking is a fundamental skill for everyone. Module 5.

• Mindstorms

  1980

  Seymour Papert

  Computational-thinking foundations; Module 5.

• Algorithms to Live By

  2016

  Christian & Griffiths

  Source of the 37% / explore-exploit idea for prompt iteration discipline. Module 5.

• Tomorrow's Lawyers

  Richard Susskind

  The changing legal job and professional identity; used in the Module 8 capstone/future-of-the-profession content.

• Online Courts and the Future of Justice

  Richard Susskind

  Future of justice and legal work; Module 8.

• The Black Box Society (2015)

  Frank Pasquale

  Opacity of algorithmic systems; Module 7 law-of-AI literacy.

• New Laws of Robotics (2020)

  Frank Pasquale

  Regulating AI; Module 7.

• Artificial Intelligence and Legal Analytics (2017)

  Kevin D. Ashley

  AI and legal reasoning/analytics; law-and-technology reading.

• Is Law Computable? (2020)

  Deakin & Markou (eds.)

  On the computability of law; law-and-technology reading.

1. 01
   Mata v. Avianca, Inc.678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)

   Judge Castel; $5,000 sanction; six fabricated cases (Varghese, Martinez, Shaboon, Petersen, Miller, Estate of Durden); the lawyer's fatal assumption that ChatGPT could not possibly be fabricating cases. The course's flagship cautionary case (Module 1).

2. 02
   Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna RaoSLP (C) No. 7575 of 2026 (SC of India, Narasimha & Aradhe JJ.)

   A pending Special Leave Petition in which the Supreme Court of India, taking note of a trial court order built on fake AI-generated judgments, observed that such a decision “would be a misconduct and legal consequence shall follow” and issued notice (amicus appointed). Not a final holding; the India-first anchor for the duty to verify.

3. 03
   Deepak v. Heart & Soul Entertainment Ltd.Bombay HC, 7 Jan 2026 (Sathaye J.)

   Rs 50,000 cost imposed for “dumping” unverified AI-generated written submissions citing a non-existent judgment; a concrete Indian consequence for unverified AI citations. Module 1/4 cautionary case.

4. 04
   Buckeye Trust v. PCITITA No. 1051/Bang/2024 (ITAT Bengaluru, 2024–25)

   Bengaluru ITAT order recalled under s.254(2) after it relied on ChatGPT-fabricated, non-existent case citations; the verification failure made concrete in an Indian tribunal. Module 4.

5. 05
   State v. Loomis881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016)

   Risk-assessment (COMPAS) and due process; the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld use of a proprietary risk score in sentencing, with limits. Module 7 algorithmic bias and due process. Comparative (US).

6. 06
   Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Peck M.J.)

   First judicial approval of predictive coding / Technology-Assisted Review in e-discovery. Module 6. Comparative (US).

7. 07
   R v Sally ClarkUK, conviction quashed 2003

   Wrongful conviction driven by a statistical fallacy in expert evidence (the 1 in 73 million error); the definitive law-meets-statistics cautionary tale and the prosecutor's fallacy. Module 3.

8. 08
   NYT v. OpenAI / MicrosoftS.D.N.Y., No. 1:23-cv-11195 (pending)

   IP/copyright in training data and AI output; key claims survived a motion to dismiss. Module 7. Comparative (US); status may have moved.

9. 09
   ANI Media v. OpenAIDelhi HC, CS(COMM) 1028/2024 (Bansal J.; order reserved)

   India's first generative-AI copyright suit over training data; interim order reserved after ~32 hearings. Module 7. Status may have moved.

10. 10
    ProPublica, “Machine Bias” (COMPAS investigation)ProPublica, 23 May 2016

    Angwin et al.'s investigation finding racial disparities in the COMPAS recidivism risk tool; the empirical backbone of the bias-and-due-process discussion (an investigative report, not a case). Module 7. Comparative (US).

11. 11

    Delhi HC rejection of AI-fabricated pleadings

    Delhi HC — specific matter not yet sourced

    Listed in the India cautionary-case spine. The master brief gives no neutral citation and we have not yet sourced a specific Delhi HC matter — obtain and confirm the order before any classroom or filing use (or rely on the verified Bombay HC / ITAT / SC matters instead).

12. 12
    Jaswinder Singh v. State of PunjabP&H HC, 2023 (Chitkara J.)

    Punjab & Haryana High Court consulted ChatGPT for a “broader picture” of bail jurisprudence (it did not decide the bail on the AI output); listed in the India-specific cautionary-case spine.

• DPDP Act 2023

  India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (enacted 11 Aug 2023); the DPDP Rules 2025 were notified Nov 2025 and are phasing in to 2027. Data protection, automated decision-making, and the contested right to explanation. Module 7; central to confidentiality discipline (no PII in public LLMs).

• EU AI Act

  Regulation (EU) 2024/1689; entered into force Aug 2024 and phasing in to 2027. Comparative regulatory-landscape material. Module 7.

• Supreme Court of India White Paper on AI and the Judiciary

  Centre for Research and Planning, Supreme Court of India, Nov 2025. Warns of hallucinations, bias, and confidentiality; stresses mandatory human verification and the judge as ultimate decision-maker; restricts cloud GenAI for case data. The India-first regulatory frame.

From the generalist chatbots you already know to the judiciary's own approved systems — surveyed so you can judge fit, not endorse a vendor.