Unnecessary legal costs affect the overall economics for all of us. Costs must be built into what we buy, so we end up being hurt in general. If we are the victim of an unnecessary suit, obviously there is a great personal cost.
LOSER PAYS OTHER'S COSTS
The ease of bringing a suit against someone or some entity and forcing an unjustified payoff because the other wants to avoid the time and costs of litigation creates lots of costs and unnecessary litigation.
George H. W. Bush (the 1st one) attempted to change the system so that the loser of a suit pays the legal costs of the other. Whether lawyers lobbied hard against this or whether few realized the benefits of it is not known, but the response was virtually nil.
Yet that is one of the most transforming things we could implement, stopping huge monetary and time and stress costs of unnecessary lawsuits. Instead of being a highly litigious society, we can, instead, devote our energies to more productive activities that contribute to the overall good.
We would most likely give some discretion to judges to not pass over the costs if the winning party unduly caused extra costs. There may have to be some tweaks that allow discretion for the judge, but the overall principle makes sense.
But the judgment for the legal fees of the winning party would have to be made not eligible for bankruptcy, so that it is even more effective.
The right to trial by jury is a basic right of the "accused" or the defendant, so the person sued can choose to have the less variable and more considered judgment of a judge that would tend to create far fewer inappropriately sized judgments. The plaintiff should not be allowed to demand a jury and will have to rely on a judge.
Also, the presentation of the attorneys is not so full of emotionally appealing schemes and also more to the point, as the "teaching" necessary for the lay jury is not engaged in at all.
The problem of the jury trial is "the competence or lack thereof of jurors as fact-finders, and the uniformity or capriciousness of the justice they administer."
The cost of the suit for a professional is under the control by choice of the professional - and therefore laws imposing statutory limits on suits involving malpractice are not necessary, if we assume that judges will make "judicious" judgments. (If not, the judgments can be appealed.)