> So, the strongest and most common objection against the English rule is that it would prevent the poor from suing even if they had a good case; they just couldn't afford a 10% chance of owing thousands of dollars.

The majority of cases where the litigant is "poor" involve contingency fees (the lawyer gets nothing unless they win), and contingency fees are considered unethical (to the point you'll get disbarred) in most European countries. I would add the issue where if contingency fees are any part of the lawyer's payment scheme, the lawyer would also be jointly and severally liable for the legal fees of the winning party.

I see three possibilities for this outcome - every case gets settled on the courthouse steps (as opposed to about half these days) or the lawyers fight everything to the bitter end (and there will be no more settling on the courthouse), and finally, much less litigation.

At the moment, the "rediculous" judgements that people complain about (one poster child is the McDonald's coffee case) are acting as a subsidy for lawyers. Without this subsidy, far less cases will be filed

I've strongly considered running with this idea as a ballot initiative in my state.