Civil attorneys embellish and attempt to gain leverage in cases. It is what they do. Sit in a civil discovery dispute, and you will find the word 'outrageous' thrown around frequently. If a communication with an attorney is made public (non-privileged as the statement is spoken to others), and may be evidence later, then that attorney may have to withdraw from a case if called as a witness.
Brown is a public figure worth millions. There is a reason we don't enter civil judgments based on uncontested "click bait" in articles. There is a reason why hearsay is scrutinized, and frequently inadmissible, as evidence. There is a reason why testimony is subject to cross-examination under oath at trial. The reason is witnesses often wilt and become absolutely unbelievable when the right questions are asked. The worst, most horrible claims often become explicable and false in depositions and testimony.
If you know nothing of the person making an adverse statement, and that statement profits the declarant with publicity or possible financial return, then the prudent person asks why. At this point, Brown can be as horrible as he is painted to be, a complete victim, or something in between. Following hit piece articles that serve the publisher given Brown's unpopularity will not answer the question of what did or didn't happen.