Every respondent ever sued has a desire to respond by suing the complainant in return. Most accusers realize, with the advice of cautious and thoughtful advice, that this is not a good idea.
Antonio Brown is not one of the defendants.
Brown has lowered Britney Taylor for prosecution. and disruptions to his NFL opportunities and recommendations, according to Jeremy Fowler of ESPN.com. In my opinion, based on 18 years of practicing law (but thankfully ten years away from it) is a very bad idea.
Brown should simply defend the allegations of merit. Beating back aggressively against someone who does not have the resources to compensate him for lost NFL opportunities and approvals will make him look real and meaningful. Which can make it more difficult to convince a jury that he did not do the things Taylor has accused him of doing.
It simply comes off as a bullying tactic. It forces the plaintiff to worry about an unfavorable verdict, to press her to solve the peanut case or to go away.
Here is the second problem of a defamation case: Since the damages are determined by assessing the damage to Brown's existing reputation, everything about his existing reputation becomes fair play. Which gives the lawyers a license to go down in anything and everything that would make Brown look bad.
It's a very bad idea. But it's not too late to fix it. Brown can instruct his attorneys to abandon the bill and to focus solely on defending the lawsuit.
This would undoubtedly be the smartest thing he has done all year. Of course, given the year he's had, it's a low bar.