Any money that either side spends on legal resources, 50% goes to your lawyer and 50% to opposing counsel. You can spend $1,000,000, or go pro se, but the other side gets the same resources.
Another way to make this work is to cap expenses for both sides (I believe Germany does this for many types of cases).
The deeper issue is that there have been no serious efforts at reform. The system basically needs to be re-invented from the ground up. A lot of disputes which should not be adversarial (such as family law) are made into such, and there are misaligned incentives all over the place.
That must vary a lot by jurisdiction. In San Francisco and neighboring Alameda County (Oakland, Berkeley), prosecutors are facing criticism for their insistence that they will not bring charges unless they believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, even when there appears to be a lot of evidence in that direction. Essentially, they are pre-empting the jury's job. It's so bad that Alameda D.A. is facing a possible recall just a year after being elected, for not bringing charges that in the past would have been routine.
Once a case is under trial, that’s their job, isn’t it, just as it’s the job of the defense to get an acquittal, even if they think or even know you did it?
I think the problem is pre trial, with trials getting started even though there’s no good evidence.
We are confusing diligence and factual reporting with incentivized persuasion.