My first foray into probability theory was my 2011 paper Chance and Litigation, which explores whether litigation outcomes are random. Although I had not yet rediscovered Bayes’ theorem when I began writing my first probability paper (circa 2008 or 2009), my interest in probability theory inevitably led me to the ideas of Thomas Bayes, and I soon began exploring the logic of inverse probability and extending Bayesian reasoning and subjective probability to several different areas of law, including litigation outcomes, proof problems, jury voting, and judge voting. Most (but not all) of my probability papers were published from 2011 to 2020:

1. **A Bayesian Model of the Litigation Game (2011). I wrote this paper in Amsterdam during the summer of 2011, and it is my first refereed paper.
2. *Visualizing Probabilistic Proof (2014). This paper, which I wrote at my in-laws’ house in Tarpon Springs during the summer of 2013, revisits the Blue Bus Case, a famous thought-experiment in law involving probabilistic proof, and presents simple Bayesian solutions to different versions of the blue bus problem.
3. Judge Hercules or Judge Bayes? (2015). This unpublished paper explores two possible connections between hard cases in law and Newcomb’s Paradox in philosophy. One is that Newcomb’s Problem is like a “hard case” in law — i.e. a choice problem with conflicting and equally logical solutions. The other is that the superior being in Newcomb’s Problem and the mythical Judge Hercules in Ronald Dworkin’s theory of law are the same person.
4. *Why Don’t Juries Try Range Voting? (2016). This paper builds on the idea of “subjective probability” to propose the use of “range voting”, which I later christened Bayesian voting, by juries. (Jurors would score the evidence presented by the parties at trial on a scale of one to ten or some other specified scale.)
5. **A Bayesian Analysis of the Hadley Rule (2018). This paper was published in a collection of essays on the law of contracts (see pp. 925-928). Although this is one of the shortest formal papers I have ever written (only nine paragraphs), it underwent ten revisions during the editing process.
6. *The Case for Bayesian Judges (2019) Like my 2016 jury paper (see item #4 above), this paper builds on the idea of “subjective probability” to propose a simple method of judicial voting.
7. Subjective Probability and Legal Proof (2020). This unpublished paper presents a Bayesian critique of Ron Allen and Mike Pardo’s “relative plausibility” theory of legal proof. (Among other things, their approach to proof can be “Dutch-booked”.)
8. Weyl Versus Ramsey: A Bayesian Voting Primer (2020). This unpublished paper compares and contrasts two methods of Bayesian voting or Bayesian preference-aggregation that allow voters not only to rank their preferences but also to express their degree: Quadratic Voting (QV) and Ramsian Voting (RV).

* = published paper; ** = refereed