That is a little simplistic regarding tort reform. First, it isn't the doctor that lawyers up, it's the insurance company that provides the malpractice insurance. Now, does the doctor have to pay really high malpractice insurance rates? Probably. So there is that. But insurers have probably the most financial power of any repeat player in the court system. They buy their lawyers' services at bundled, cheap rates, and they spread their risk over all of their insureds, not just one or two.
Tort reform isn't a terrible idea, but at the same time, the AMA should be forced to police itself better. The numbers regarding who is sued for malpractice, and who is found liable for malpractice suggest that there are repeat offenders who--not unlike end of life care skewing health costs--skew the risk/costs for the malpractice insurance market.
The other question that our legal system grapples with is how to address the wrongs? In many developed economies, the government is responsible for what we think of as civil litigation, i.e., the government has attorneys who pursue tort claims on behalf of victims. That means the victims lose control, and it means big government beauracracy.
There are unquestionably abuses in the system, but they are on both sides--unfairness where some people get way more money than they should have for something that may not have even been malpractice, and truly injured people who get nothing because they can't stand up to the bohemoth insurers who defend malpractice actions.
As usual, it's complicated. :-)