This sounds like the British rule, where the loser pays the winner's
legal expenses. Very sensible.

Initially I thought so but there are several reasons why this may not always
be a good idea.

Think of this hypothetical case where Joe CFI gets hit by OJ and needs to
sue. Joe CFI shows up with his ACME attorney charging $300/ hr; which he
really cannot afford. But he truely was hit by OJ who was drunk and fleeing
a murder scene. Now OJ, guilty as can be, shows up with 6 attorneys all
charging $850/hr plus expenses.

Joe loses because the opposing council baffles the crap of of 12 unemployed
postal workers. Now Joe is injured and loses everything and must file
bankrupsy and he was only guilty of being on his way to church.

;-)

Of course it isn't working the way it is now either.

Carl