Key Takeaways
- The Fair Work Commission ruled that Gregory Baker, a Macquarie University computing academic, should be treated as an ongoing part‑time employee, marking the first test of Labor’s 2024 “employee choice pathway” reforms.
- Baker represented himself at the tribunal and credited his victory to a suite of paid AI agents, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT Pro, which helped him assemble arguments, track references and anticipate counter‑arguments.
- His success stems less from AI “replacing lawyers” and more from his strong IT background, expertise in managing AI tools and the narrow, well‑focused nature of his claim.
- While AI can lower barriers for self‑represented litigants, courts are seeing a rise in low‑quality, “kitchen‑sink” filings and AI‑generated hallucinations that increase workload and complicate dispute resolution.
- The Fair Work Commission reported a 70 % increase in workload over three years, illustrating the strain that easier access—facilitated by AI—places on tribunals.
- Emerging risks include “prompt injection,” where litigants embed hidden prompts in documents to manipulate AI‑based review systems used by some courts.
- AI holds promise for Australia’s “missing middle”—people who earn too much for free legal aid but cannot afford private counsel—provided they have sufficient digital and legal capability to use the tools effectively.
- Future growth in self‑representation will likely continue, requiring tribunals to balance expanded access with case‑quality management and to address who truly benefits from AI‑enhanced justice.
Introduction
The Independent’s recent coverage highlights how public‑interest journalism relies on reader support to keep reporters on the ground, especially at pivotal moments in US history. The outlet emphasizes its commitment to paywall‑free reporting, believing “quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.” This ethos frames the story of Gregory Baker, whose legal victory has sparked a broader debate about artificial intelligence’s role in the justice system.
The Fair Work Commission Ruling
Last week, the Fair Work Commission handed down a decision that Gregory Baker, a computing academic at Macquarie University, should be treated as an ongoing part‑time employee after the university had declined his request to convert from a casual role. The ruling was immediately dubbed a “landmark” decision, described as the first test of Labor’s “employee choice pathway” reforms passed in 2024. As the article notes, “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 (AI) agents.”
Baker’s Self‑Representation and AI Use
Baker chose to represent himself without a lawyer, a fact that drew considerable attention. Speaking to the Australian Financial Review after the verdict, he explained that “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 taught computer science at Macquarie from 2023 to 2025 and, in November 2025, gave the university the required notice that he believed his work no longer met casual‑employment criteria. When the university rejected his notice, Baker lodged a dispute at the Fair Work Commission in December 2025, leading to arbitration on May 12 and a decision delivered last Wednesday.
How AI Assisted His Case
Baker said his victory came from using “multiple paid AI agents, such as OpenAI’s paid offering, ChatGPT Pro.” He described this AI “team” as helping “assemble his case, follow up references and anticipate his employer’s counter‑arguments.” The Australian Financial Review celebrated the outcome, calling it “the first known successful use of technology by a self‑represented person in the legal arena.” Baker’s approach illustrates a scenario where AI functions less as a substitute for counsel and more as a force multiplier for a literate, tech‑savvy litigant.
Expertise Matters
However, the article cautions that Baker’s case is not evidence that AI can wholesale replace lawyers. His success is tied to a “rare level of expertise in using AI in a legal context,” rooted in his IT background and his skill in managing and optimizing AI agents. The Fair Work Commission’s decision shows he kept his legal argument narrowly focused on the teaching he performed in a single unit, avoiding the “kitchen‑sink” style of argumentation that often plagues less‑experienced self‑representants. As the piece observes, “Less expert use of AI in court often sees those bringing claims produce ‘kitchen‑sink’‑style arguments, which include weak, exaggerated and nonsense claims.”
Less Positive Attention: AI Hallucinations and Volume
Elsewhere, the uptake of generative AI in legal proceedings is drawing criticism for its downsides. The article notes that “most of this attention centres on the damage caused by inaccuracies, hallucinations and ‘AI slop,’ and how courts and tribunals should best respond.” By lowering the technical barrier to filing a case, AI has led to a surge in submissions, but “case precision and quality is going down,” making it harder to resolve disputes efficiently. The Fair Work Commission alone has seen its workload climb by “70 % over three years,” a strain that threatens the tribunal’s ability to deliver timely justice.
Emerging Risks: Prompt Injection
New challenges are emerging as litigants experiment with ways to game AI‑driven review systems. Reports indicate that in some overseas jurisdictions, “litigants and lawyers… are embedding prompts in digital documents (something called ‘prompt injection’) to overcome or manipulate AI‑based review systems some courts use to process documents.” Such tactics could undermine the integrity of automated triage and necessitate new safeguards.
A Big Opportunity for Access to Justice
Despite the pitfalls, Baker’s example underscores a significant opportunity: when used well, AI tools can empower individuals with narrow legal disputes and adequate digital skills to achieve successful outcomes at low cost. The article highlights that this development is “important in access to justice,” especially in Australia, where a large “missing middle” exists—people who earn too much to qualify for free legal aid yet cannot afford private counsel. AI “stands 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.” However, the piece stresses that such suitable cases are “few and far between.”
Where Might Things Be Headed?
Looking forward, the article predicts that “case numbers and self‑representation in courts and tribunals will continue to grow and expand beyond Fair Work.” While this growth will inevitably include some baseless claims, it also reflects the natural outcome of removing a traditional access barrier—simply getting through the courthouse doors. The larger challenge for tribunals will be “striking a balance between managing caseloads and delivering justice, while not wasting the opportunity to expand access to justice.” Policymakers and court administrators must therefore consider who will truly benefit from AI‑enhanced access and who will continue to struggle with unresolved legal problems.
Conclusion
Gregory Baker’s tribunal victory, powered by a curated set of AI agents, serves as a compelling case study in the evolving relationship between technology and the law. It demonstrates that AI can be a powerful ally for litigants who possess the expertise to harness it effectively, yet it also warns of the dangers posed by unchecked AI hallucinations, inflated case volumes, and emerging manipulative tactics like prompt injection. As courts grapple with these dynamics, the central question remains: how to leverage AI’s promise to widen access to justice without sacrificing the quality and fairness that the legal system is meant to uphold. The answer will likely lie in targeted training, robust safeguards against misuse, and continued support for those who lack the resources or skills to navigate AI‑augmented legal landscapes on their own.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/artificial-intelligence-law-case-australia-b3036416.html