Artificial intelligence helps man win landmark employment case

Last week, the 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 (AI) 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.

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.

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 optimise 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.