This was in the UK. He's paying at least those; I suspect this ruling will make a criminal prosectutor's ears perk up.

The US permits attorneys fees in some cases, including "against a plaintiff who has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly or for oppressive reasons".

This whole thing reminds me of that guy that claims he invented email, and is suing everyone (The Nanny’s husband, if I remember).

> If this was in the UK, I suspect he'll be paying winner's legal fees.

> The US doesn't do that, but I'm pretty sure that it's fairly common, in the UK.

> Good way to reduce frivolous lawsuits.

Depends on what sort of lawsuits you care about facilitating.

A lot of lawsuits in the US are done on contingency. What happens if the defendant wins in that case? If the person bringing the case can't pay their own lawyers, they probably can't pay for the defense's legal bills either.

Is the law firm on the hook? That'll put a damper on the cases that firms will take on on a contingency basis.

In the UK the parties that finance litigation are supposed to be the hook in that case.