It's not so much the way of lawyers as it is the way of the law.
When you file a lawsuit, you often have to do it before you spend the time and money to do the exhaustive investigation which would show any specific liability. You can't add a defendant later in a case, but you can very easily drop a defendant during the course of a lawsuit if it turns out that there is no easily
retrievable money from the insurance company there. So from a practical point of view for the plaintiff, it makes sense to do it that way.
There are a lot of frivolous lawsuits. There are also a lot of people who are injured through no fault of their own and who have to eat the costs of that injury. I have no idea where fault lies in this particular case. Like most of us in this thread, we are just interested divers, piecing things together from the limited information that we have. Hopefully the NEDU analysis will provide more insight, but that isn't happening soon.
I'm not an attorney, but I would just caution people against the typical online response to a high profile lawsuit in the dive industry - "lawyers all suck, any plaintiff is wrong by definition, all defendants are just poor victims of the American legal system". Sure, sometimes lawsuits do fit that profile (like what happened to
Richie Kohler). Some lawyers probably are in it just to cash in on the various insurance policies written by companies that woudl rather pay out for a worthless claim than bother to fight it in court. Other times, the truth is less obvious, and there is real liability that should be discovered to help protect others in the future.
We all tend to circle the wagons with very little real information to back up our positions. Maybe just wait and see how things play out before assuming anything.