[Boatlawyer]

Not sure why this is SO frequently overlooked, but we DO have a "loser pays" system in many jurisdictions. They are called "offer of judgment" statutes. Under these statutes, a defending party can serve an offer to pay what it considers the reasonable value of the damages. If the plaintiff does not recover within 25% of the offered damages, then plaintiff must pay defendant's attorney fees and costs from the date of the offer.

Another version of "loser pays" are frivolous pleading sanctions.

Lawyers are just the canaries in the coal mine, verdict wise. Remember, juries award verdicts.

[templar]

Another version of "loser pays" are frivolous pleading sanctions

A frequent downfall of well meaning Freeper types. One thing to guard against at all costs, if filing a lawsuit which is then declared frivolous. And frivolous doesn't always mean what people think it means.

[Mamzelle]

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!