This is why we need a "losers lawyer pays" when frivolous lawsuits are filled.
THIS^^^^^^^^^
ABSOLUTELY!!!!!! It is the only way to end the legal lottery and the legal assault on constitutional rights by incremental judicial activism.
The counter argument is that our founding fathers wanted a judiciary where all men were created equal and did not have to be wealthy to seek protection/justice from the courts. Nay sayers will hold that such a system would preempt many from seeking legal remedies they may be entitled to simply because they could not afford to lose.
The British address this through a dual system of legal counsel, solicitors who meet with clients and seek settlement/remedy by mutual agreement and Barristers who litigate in court and are most frequently hired by solicitors. In this system, solicitors are well motivated to reach settlements out of court to avoid splitting fees with barristers for litigation. There are other differences as well between the two, but this is how I have found it to work in my experience.
It could be handled far more sensibly, and without creating another class of attorney (I mean who needs that), by simply requiring attorneys to carry indemnification insurance (like doctors' malpractice insurance) should they take a case to court and lose. Insurance companies do not lose money, and thus they would become the great balancer. Attorneys who take cases and lose will pay higher premiums and be priced out of work. Those that take cases with merit and win, will flourish as will their clients. Loser pays with attorneys carrying indemnity insurance to pay the winner's legal fees would end incremental judicial activism without denying anyone their day in court.
It's only draw back is that only good attorneys would survive and that would mean more of the lazy, good for nothing, dumb attorneys running for Congress. Which is why it will never happen the stupid ones already in Congress don't want the competition.