Legal fairness in disputes with vastly different sized war chests

 I think it's best if I first clarify what I am proposing, what I think it might solve, and then how I feel the problems you raise may be voided.

First, the problem I see which this idea would seek to solve is the problem that large differences in spending on sides of a case will inevitably lead to differences in the quality of the evidence and research that can be done on either side leading to the law not being fair.

I believe wholeheartedly and very strongly that the law should be fair and everyone equal under it.

The premise upon which my plan provides a fairness I feel from what I have heard is currently missing from the legal profession, is that it is far cheaper to find the truth than produce a lie.

This is based on examples I imagine such as to report a document is cheap while generating a fraudulent one which is statistically consistent is expensive.

The premise is that: “To build a convincing lie is expensive.”

Based on this premise I postulate that if both sides have equal funding to a case then the truth cannot be averted by funds.

What I propose is a system where all legal resources to a case must be reported, counted and funded by a central pot which both sides are free to contribute any amount to. 

In this system any benefit in kind to either side of the case must be reported and counted.

In such a system it would be criminal fraud to use resources not accounted for in a case. As such it might even be made illegal to use material which is “gifted” without those gifts being accounted for and contributed to.

I agree that miss reporting may be prevalent but it would be in most cases raising the stakes of the legal case greatly, perhaps from a civil case to a criminal case of fraud.

In the case you mention about a paper or other large corporate taking half of the small funds and then using better lawyers, for other services, this would clearly be considered a benefit in kind to the side of the large corporate, who would either have to forgo the expensive lawyers for ones of the equivalent price of the person bringing the suit.

I imagine by the new environment this would create, a race to zero, where people are incentivised to spend less not more on the legal profession. 

In a suit where two people of similar size were fighting, the same sort of race to zero might occur.

The situation of one side winning the costs of the battle against the other is an interesting one. I would argue that although on the face of it this would seem to level the playing field, in reality this is often fraught with the problems of the credit worthiness of the losing side.

In the case of companies, they may declare bankruptcy to avoid paying the failed suit after the fact or in the case of individuals I have heard stories where trying get paid the funds owed becomes a problem where the recovery fees cut away at the debt.

An up front system of funds would never allow someone to lose too much from the creditworthiness of the opponent as funds would be paid more up front.

I agree a lot of flaws still with the problem, I think for me the real nail in the coffin was its immediate branding of a communist agenda, I imagine it could never be passed through any opposition in open media with an initial reaction like that.