[Mamzelle]

I'm in favor of gutting the right of a plaintiff to sue without fear of having to pay for a defendents expenses, should that defendent prevail. And if the plaintiff is a pauper, let his lawyer pay those expenses.

[Iwo Jima]

Well, no plaintiff has "no fear" of having to pay for a defendant's expenses. Texas, and I am sure in all states, has laws requiring plaintiffs to pay for frivolous lawsuits. There is unfortunately no effective way to recover for a frivolous defense.

I oppose "loser pays" because it effectively closes the legal system to all but the very rich or the very poor (judgment proof). Gutting the civil justice system will just lead to more violence when people who have no legal recourse take matters into their own hands and just start killing negligent doctors. The conservative Republican judge in my last trial emphasized this point to the jury panel, that thanks to jurors and jury trials, we do not see people just getting a gun and settling matters themselves. That seems to be a value of having trials that you have overlooked or just discounted.