I find your comments disheartening as the our justice system is the greatest the world as ever known. You should consider yourself privileged for the opportunuty.
As you are aware loser pays is completely unfair and would deny access to the courts for all but the wealthiest plaintiffs.
There are many disenchanted lawyers...heck, I can count ten bitter lawyers that spoke openly of their bitterness towards the law while in law school....imagine their bitterness once they join a firm and have to practice to pay their loans off.
I love the profession of law; I hate the business of law. Unfortunately, the two mesh into one.....
And I agree with Kevin...people need lawyers only when something bad is happening, thus, the reinforcement that lawyers = bad. And as much as people, especially Freepers, bitch about the legal system and frivilous lawsuits, the vast, vast majority of civil lawsuits are business disputes, not tort cases. To large corporations, lawsuits are just a way of life. Countries have their armies of tanks; corporations have their armies of lawyers.
Loser pays gives the little guy the ammo to go up against the big guy.
Without loser pays, the little guy loses even if he wins his case.
Loser pays goes for friviolous lawsuits as well as frivilous defenses.
How many times did you have to tell a would-be client that his case is not worth the battle because the attorney fees and expenses would eat up the award and more?
Lawyers don't like loser pays because they see it as blunting excessive litigation; their life blood.
The [loser-pays] rule makes weak cases less attractive to bring but strong cases less attractive to defend against.
A plaintiff who has a strong case will get paid all the sooner and at lower cost. The bottom line is that the loser pays rule would make plaintiff's lawyers even better "professional evaluators of claims" before seeking to use the coercive power of the state. Surely no one would object to that. (From Posner)