That only covers the incentive for the lawyer for one isolated case. But since such a lawyer will probably take many such cases (and often against the same banks), we must examine the incentives of such a lawyer more closely. The incentive of such a lawyer is to keep taking such cases, which means it is actually in the lawyer’s interest to deliberately lose some amount of such cases, in order to keep it profitable for the bank to keep debanking customers, thereby ensuring that the lawyer has enough business.
That implies the lawyers act in cahoots to try to influence this much greater body of people/power, over and against their immediate interests. It also implies they're fully crooked. It seems like an extraordinary claim (well, the former).
Lawyers aren't limited to isolated cases. Class actions exist for this exact reason and regularly lead to hundred million dollar+ payouts from banks and other large defendants for harm done to large groups of people.
