Well, an incentive for costly lawyering might translate into an incentive for competent people to go into the profession, which does incentivize competent lawyering.
Also, since the counterparty is basically making a financial decision (rather than a moral decision), costly lawyering is competent. The price is part of the service.
It incentivizes lawyers who prefer expensive lawyering.
Competence is an orthogonal question.
Lawyers are basically mercenaries engaged in trial by combat, abstracted to an exchange of relevant facts and opinions.
It's not obvious that a battle between mercenaries is the best way to get a just result.
Considered systemically, lawyers also control legislation.
While it would be better for consumers to have much stronger protections, the people who make money out of weak protections are not incentivized to argue for stronger laws which would reduce their billable hours.
Also, since the counterparty is basically making a financial decision (rather than a moral decision), costly lawyering is competent. The price is part of the service.