That would almost eliminate frivolous lawsuits like this. Too many lawyers are willing to take a case in hopes of a settlement when the defendant is known to have some financial resources. No lawyer would ever take on a contingency case they didn't totally think they could win, especially if the Plaintiff didn't have the resources to cover the costs of both sides legal fees if they lose. Eliminating frivolous lawsuits would lower the cost of many things, like insurance and healthcare, which are inflated to cover all potential liability. It will never happen because the litigation lawyers would fight it forever.

I believe that's the way (loser pays) the courts work in the UK. Wish we had the same laws here. It's too easy to sue someone over frivolous claims and having a loser pays rule would bring some accountability to our justice system. As it is now the party who is right doesn't always win. The cost of litigation is often the motivator for settling a claim, even if you are not guilty.

Paltrow stood on principle and was willing to risk her own legal costs to prove it. She could have easily countersued him for lots of money but limited her damages to $1 and attorney fees. Ironically, Sanderson will likely have to pay far more to her lawyers than he would have got had he won. An 8 day trial out of state with so many experts and lawyers would likely cost $500k or more. Now I hope her lawyers are able to collect or he will be right back in court again on the other side of the table.