Every defendant ever sued has a desire to respond by suing the plaintiff in return. Most defendants realize, through careful and thoughtful advice, that this is not a good idea.
Antonio Brown is not one of those accused.
Brown advised Britney Taylor for defamation and interference with his NFL ability and endorsement, according to Jeremy Fowler of ESPN.com. This, in my opinion, is based on 18 years of legal practice (but, fortunately, 10 years is removed from this), a very bad idea.
Brown should simply defend the allegations on the merits. Aggressive struggles with those who do not have the resources to compensate for the missed opportunities and approval of the NFL will make him look vindictive and mean. Which may make it difficult for the jury to convince that he did not do what Taylor accused of this.
Simply put, this is a scare tactic. This makes the plaintiff worry about an unfavorable verdict, forcing her to settle a peanut deal or leave.
Here's another problem with the defamation case: since the damage is determined by assessing the damage done to Brown’s preexisting reputation, everything about his preexisting reputation becomes fair play. Which gives her lawyers a license to delve into everything and everything that could make Brown look bad.
Bottom line, this is a very bad idea. But it’s not too late to fix it. Brown may instruct his lawyers to waive the counterclaim and focus solely on legal defense.
Perhaps this will be the smartest thing he has done in a whole year. Of course, given the year he had, this is a low bar.