> And to a great degree, I tend to agree with this approach.  It would help
> reduce the number of frivolous suits, and perhaps those whereby someone
> sues simply because the target will probably settle out-of-court because
> its cheaper/etc. then dealing with all the hassle.  But on the other
> hand I am concerned what this might do to the 'little guy' who really
> does have a legitimate claim but cannot hire all the high-priced legal
> teams and basically gets overwhelmed by maneuvers/etc.

In fact, that's one of the more popular arguments that attorney lobbyist
groups use to head off efforts directed toward "loser pays". Some might
suggest that the simple fact that the legal lobbyist organization uses the
argument makes it inherently suspect. But there are other indications that
the argument is somewhat disingenuous. Like the fact that we don't hear the
"little guys" in Britain or Japan crying out for a change to the US's
system. Or that a solidly-established "loser pays" system would be more
likely to *increase* the chance that the "little guy with a legitimate
claim" would receive competent representation, because attorneys would be
competing with each other for winnable cases, and would seek out those
needing representation.

Steve