Lawyers make mistakes too. Perhaps you’re surprised to hear that but there’s an entire section of law to deal with this. And yes lawyers use software dictation all the time because it’s faster and more accurate than a human assistant.
In fact ML does already do a better job in tasks like crawling through case research, while people then take over for strategy and deduction.
This split between low-level mechanical vs high-level creative thinking is a good distinction between ML vs human application, and most driving falls in the former.
You're conflating issues. Software is already better at transcribing than humans. [1] And lawyers will verify the contents whether it's done by software or a person, because neither is perfect and their job is the higher-level intention of the document, not the copying of words. But they still like the machine saving the human from tedious work.
So why should that layer, after meticulasly checking this document, trust his life to another ML system, just like the one that just failed him?