An acceptable trade-off in my view. The defendant is by definition not the one starting the court case so its more difficult to abuse. e.g. I can go onto the street & hit 10 guys with a baseball bat. Compare that with waiting on the street to get punched in the face (unlikely to happen) & then hitting them back with a baseball bat. Both involve the possibility of someone getting hit with a baseball bat but the one is less likely to happen & more difficult to abuse.
That's quite an understatement. If the plaintiff's attorney spends half of what the defense spends, he's looking at tripling his exposure if he loses. That's an enormous difference.
Maybe. How about a 65% chance? Should we discourage that plaintiff if his lawyer declines to back him financially? After all, lawyers are lawyers, not bankers.
Good luck trying that kind of regulation in the US.
Indeed, it's about as likely as getting Germany's system of universal health care here. It just reinforces the fact that conservatives favor draconian government regulations when they benefit corporate interests but argue against those that benefit the public at large.