We also have a system that awards "reasonable and customary" fees and bonuses to ersatz "pro-bono" civil rights atties. Most people don't know how much $$ the ACLU extorts out of the system in actual fees, not just the donations they cry for.
The point being, the privilege you cite of the judge to zap the plaintiff's atty with costs and expenses when the defendant prevails is neither readily, customarily or commonly used. The plaintiff's atty feels no fear; all he has to lose is his time. The defendant *always* loses, even when he emerges victorious. That is what needs to be corrected. At the very least, a civil case should have a level playing field.
In family court, the losing plaintiff frequently ends up paying defense expenses, and in contract disputes. In tort case, loser pays? Not unless the plaintiff's atty also ends up in jail!
This liability crisis is contrived and entirely the result of ineffecient insurance carriers mismanaging and taking advantage of the situation. If you look at loss ratios over the past 10 years for medical malpractice, you will see a very stable, and predictible level of payouts.....this all about the insurance industry making up for lost profits on their investments.