Courts have been relatively wary of dismissing frivolous suits (at least according to some reports) in recent decades (perhaps in response to an overinclination to do so in the past, further disadvantaging disenfranchised groups). A bit of strengthening of frivolous suit protections, and a waiver of the shared fees in this case, might help.
I'll give you another: there are situations in which pro-bono services may be provided to one party in a suit. Often to increase the equity of a situation, but not in all cases. Should the pro-bono provider be on the hook for the opposing parties reciprocal costs, and how should the PB provider's services be valued?
The SCO v. IBM suit is another in which I could see IBM's legal costs (very high, I'm sure, though I've seen no figures or estimates given) but in which SCO being granted pooled fees would be a miscarriage of justice.
I'll give you another: there are situations in which pro-bono services may be provided to one party in a suit. Often to increase the equity of a situation, but not in all cases. Should the pro-bono provider be on the hook for the opposing parties reciprocal costs, and how should the PB provider's services be valued?
The SCO v. IBM suit is another in which I could see IBM's legal costs (very high, I'm sure, though I've seen no figures or estimates given) but in which SCO being granted pooled fees would be a miscarriage of justice.
Why is being good so difficult?