Last week, Australia’s Fair Work Commission ruled Gregory Baker, a computing academic at Macquarie University, should be treated as an ongoing, part-time employee, after the university had earlier declined his request to convert from a casual role.
It was immediately described as a “landmark” decision, the first test of Labor’s “employee choice pathway” reforms passed in 2024.
But the ruling also made headlines for other reasons. Baker represented himself at the tribunal and has said he won with the help of trained artificial intelligence agents. His success again has us asking: Can AI replace lawyers?
On closer scrutiny, Baker’s case looks less like evidence of AI replacing lawyers and more like a powerful illustration of how a highly capable user can employ AI tools to terrific effect.
Request Denied
Speaking to the Australian Financial Review following the ruling, Baker said it was actually an AI tool that alerted him to the possibility of converting his role from casual to permanent part-time in the first place.
He had been teaching computer science at Macquarie University over consecutive semesters from 2023 to 2025, and in November 2025, he gave the university the required notice that he believed his work no longer met the requirements of casual employment.
The university did not accept this notification and Baker lodged a dispute at the Fair Work Commission—without a lawyer—in December 2025. The parties could not reach agreement, and the case went to arbitration on May 12. A decision was handed down last Wednesday.
Expert Use of AI
Baker has said he won by using multiple paid AI agents, such as OpenAI’s paid offering, ChatGPT Pro. This “team” helped assemble his case, follow up references, and anticipate his employer’s counterarguments.
His victory has been celebrated as historic, with the Australian Financial Review describing it as “the first known successful use of technology by a self-represented person in the legal arena.”
However, a few things set this particular case apart. Baker’s IT background, expertise managing AI agents, and ability to optimize their use for his case represent a rare level of expertise in using AI in a legal context.
Details included in the Fair Work Commission’s decision also suggest he kept his legal argument narrowly focused on teaching he’d done in one particular unit.
Less expert use of AI in court often sees those bringing claims produce “kitchen sink”-style arguments, which include weak, exaggerated, and nonsense claims.
Baker’s dispute was also narrow, limited to the application of a casual conversion law that had not yet been tested. Importantly, the Fair Work Commission (a tribunal, not a court) is designed to be user-friendly, to enable workers to bring claims without a lawyer.
Less Positive Attention
Elsewhere, the use of generative AI in legal proceedings is attracting a lot of attention for less positive reasons.
Most of this attention centers on the damage caused by inaccuracies, hallucinations and “AI slop”, and how courts and tribunals should best respond.
By making it easier to put a case together, AI has removed traditional access barriers for some litigants. But while case numbers are going up, case precision and quality is going down, making it harder to manage disputes to resolution.
Courts and tribunals are struggling with the volume. At the Fair Work Commission alone, workload has reportedly increased by 70 percent over three years.
New challenges are emerging as time goes on. Reports suggest litigants and lawyers in some overseas jurisdictions are embedding prompts in digital documents (something called “prompt injection”) to overcome or manipulate AI-based review systems some courts use to process documents.
A Big Opportunity
Baker’s example shows us something significant. Used well, AI tools can empower people with narrow legal disputes and digital skills to achieve successful resolutions at low cost.
This is an important development in access to justice. In Australia, there is a huge gap between the number of people with legal problems and the very limited funding available for legal assistance.
Most of the community is in the “missing middle,” unable to afford private legal assistance but on incomes too high to qualify for free legal aid.
AI tools stand a good chance of helping people with sufficient legal capability with problems and cases—like Gregory Baker’s—that are a good fit for the solutions AI can offer. These are few and far between, however.
Where Might Things Be Headed?
We should expect case numbers and self-representation in courts and tribunals will continue to grow and expand beyond Fair Work.
While there will be some baseless cases, the growth also represents the natural consequence of removing one traditional access barrier to our formal justice institutions—getting in the front door to start proceedings.
The bigger picture challenges are persistent and raise important questions. Who will most benefit from the capacity of AI tools to enhance access to justice, and who will continue to struggle to get basic legal problems resolved?
For courts and tribunals, the challenge will be striking a balance between managing caseloads and delivering justice, while not wasting the opportunity to expand access to justice.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
