Views on AI Decision Support and Human Authority in Legal Settings in Bangladesh

Artificial intelligence (AI) may assist legal professionals in organising information, but its use in legal decision support raises questions about human authority, explanation and procedural safeguards. This study examines responses to related statements in 385 adult, AI-aware survey records from Bangladesh. The mixed sample includes 250 law students, 73 law graduates, 36 advocates or legal professionals and 26 other respondents; it is not presented as a representative survey of practising lawyers or judges. Individual questionnaire items are analysed using response distributions, joint endorsement, paired comparisons and exploratory ordinal correlations. Of 385 respondents, 247 (64.2%) agreed that AI decision-support tools could help legal professionals organise relevant information, 243 (63.1%) endorsed use only when a human decision-maker retains final authority, and 321 (83.4%) agreed that clear rules would increase their acceptance. A total of 158 (41.0%) endorsed both the information-organisation and human-authority statements. Within the 36 recorded advocates or legal professionals, 26 endorsed the former and 18 the latter; the subgroup is too small for a representative professional estimate. The survey does not measure actual use of a judicial system or demonstrate that oversight or rules improve outcomes. The article distinguishes perceived assistance from conditions of use and recommends direct testing of legal information quality, meaningful human review and opportunities to challenge AI-supported recommendations.