I will never understand why the loser doesn't pay the winner's fees.
That would be naturally anti-balanced. Consider that the person who spent the most is likelier to win (even wrongly), and similarly that would mean a terrible expenditure on the part of the loser, who would lose both his case and the tremendous legal fees of the winner. The tenancy would then be for both sides to spend all their money on the case, and for the lose to go bankrupt.
Ideally, the legal system should have the following traits:
There should be a significant disadvantage for the aggressor, to discourage frivolous or non-frivolous but unnecessary lawsuits.
It should not be too difficult nor risky for someone who was clearly harmed by another, to take legal action against them.
The outcome should not be unduly influenced by money nor status. The less wealthy party should not face undue risk of losing, nor the more wealthy undue risk of being taken advantage of.
Those clearly innocent should not be unduly harmed by the trial, the clearly guilty should not be able to get off with a meaningless punishment.
The process should not be illegal. No violations of the Constitution, no perjury/parallel construction, no bribes/campaign contributions/threats of absurd punishment if one doesn't plead guilty