Ooooh...I like.
Why? If the trial lawyer on a contingency case loses now, he makes nothing. If we establish a loser pays system, the trial lawyer on a contingency case will still make nothing.
A plaintiff that loses makes nothing in damage awards. An indigent plaintif that loses under the current system will get nothing. An indigent plaintiff that loses under a loser pays system will still get nothong and, being indigent, will pay nothing. You, of course, will probably be required to post twenty or thirty thousand up front to bring a justified suit. Are you, or the indigent, more likely to sufer consequences of loser pays?
My experience is that the financially responisble usually aren't the ones that bring the lawsuits that everyone is complaining about. It's the people with little of nothing to loose that are the problem (look at the 'mcdonalds made me fat' stuff). If all you have is your welfare, or small salary, and less personal property than bankruptcy allows to be siezed (value of home, car, etc that are exempt will vary from State to State), why wouldn't you try to strike it rich by suing to the max for anything you can? And why wouldn't a trial lawyer who thinks you might win (or one who is promoting a cause) take your case?
I don't see anything changing with a loser pays system except denying the successful working class access to the legal system for satisfaction of grievances.
Except for one problem: All the American people ever elect to Congress are trial lawyers.