Countersuit litigation.

Countersuit litigation brings into sharp focus some difficult and conflicting concepts in law and social policy. A point that seems reasonably self-evident is that the existence of a viable countersuit remedy in most states has not produced the huge volume of litigation that might create a "chilling effect" upon access to the courts, and it is not likely to do so in the future. If our system is actually committed to the idea that all disputes can be submitted to the courts for resolution, it is difficult to conclude that a remedy should not be available to an individual who has been subjected to the very real cost and hardship of defending a frivolous lawsuit. The use of the legal system to provide redress for injuries should be a two-way street. The fact that a remedy should exist, however, does not necessarily mean that is should be encouraged. Most serious-minded people understand that certain types of inconvenience are a necessary part of life in a civilized society. Nevertheless, if litigation is increasingly becoming a mechanism for profit or an instrument to remedy the most minor grievance, some response is mandatory. While litigation is a serious matter and should not be undertaken lightly, it is impossible to overlook the fact that there is a certain percentage of cases that are filed to exploit the system at the expense of innocent defendants. If litigation serves a dual purpose of providing compensation to injured parties and setting appropriate standards for future conduct, it is hard to find a rational basis for denying a countersuit remedy to those who have been victimized in this manner.