I feel the need to point out a couple things. I hope they are obvious to this group.
The use of "we" in the article includes not just the community of experienced climbers, but everyone who goes into the mountains (or the "wilds'). The latter group is often untrained and uneducated about the challenges they face. Route finding, gear selection, hazard identification, and knowing when to turn around are all developed skills.
Note that there are true accidents. But in many cases, there were errors in judgement that led to the incident. As an example, here's an article about camping next to "an obvious hazard" (In liability cases, hindsight is always 20/20) that the Boise National Forest supposedly should have removed:
It's not "the lawyers" who cause the problems described. It's again the latter group of untrained and uneducated, and/or their families and loved ones. The lawyers are only providing a legal service to those who seek retribution (or absolution), often for the mistakes that led to injury or death.
Ask yourself: If you were to come to harm, would you or your family expect "the government" to look for you and provide rescue? Would you or your family sue?
And ask this: does "the government" have a right to try to avoid these situations by setting basic levels of skill/equipment/experience? Yeah, I've been grilled by the Park Service. But I don't think they (nor the lawyers) are the ones that should be the target of my annoyance.