Federal Court judge Michael Lee has ordered McDonald's and the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association to explore using artificial intelligence to prepare for a $100 million class action over alleged underpayments, in what is shaping up as a test case for how AI could cut the cost of major litigation.
The novel orders, issued late last week, require both parties to work with technology experts on how AI could assist with mediation and a 10-week trial listed for 2028. The case involves claims that McDonald's underpaid workers, and the judge has been vocal about the need to reduce the expense of large-scale court proceedings.
Justice Lee is pushing lawyers to be imaginative about cost reduction. The orders effectively make the McDonald's class action a testing ground for AI in case preparation, a development that legal professionals will be watching closely.
What the orders require
The parties must now consult technology experts and report back on how AI tools could be used to prepare for mediation and trial. That could include document review, evidence analysis, or drafting assistance - tasks that traditionally consume significant time and money in class actions.
The case is listed for a 10-week trial in 2028, giving both sides time to develop and test AI approaches. The outcome could set a precedent for how Australian courts handle AI-assisted litigation.
For legal teams, the practical implications are immediate. Firms handling large disputes will need to understand what AI can and cannot do in case preparation, and how to present those options to a court. Resources like AI for Legal cover the capabilities and limits of current tools, which is directly relevant to the kind of assessment Justice Lee has ordered.
Why the judge is pushing this
Justice Lee has a reputation for speaking directly about the cost of litigation. Class actions are among the most expensive matters in the federal court system, with document discovery and preparation often running into millions of dollars before a trial begins.
The orders are not a direction to use AI - they require the parties to explore it. That distinction matters. The judge is forcing lawyers to consider the technology seriously, not mandating its use.
For paralegals and junior lawyers, the shift could change day-to-day work. Document review, chronologies, and evidence summaries are prime candidates for AI assistance. An AI Learning Path for Paralegals addresses exactly these tasks, and the skills it covers are likely to be in demand if this approach spreads to other cases.
Why this matters for legal professionals
This is the first time an Australian court has ordered parties to explore AI in a class action of this scale. If the experiment works, other judges may follow. If it fails, the reasons will be just as instructive.
Legal teams should be ready to answer questions from clients and courts about AI-assisted case preparation. That means knowing which tools are reliable, what safeguards are needed, and how to cost the work. The McDonald's case will provide a public test of all three.
Your membership also unlocks:
