I would argue almost the opposite. I don't see how it serves the public interest to limit the amount of resources people are allowed to use to defend themselves

I would argue almost the opposite. I don't see how it serves the public interest to limit the amount of resources people are allowed to use to defend themselves against the state. it's sort of like combating inequality by burning down the nicest houses. you've made everyone more equal, but no one is better off for it. I think the imbalance is actually much worse in civil cases, which are disputes between people who ought to be peers. the fact that people have to give up their right to see an opponent in court because they can't afford counsel seems much worse than some rich people getting a better defense against the state.