Giuffre is now suing Andrew in New York. The prince's lawyer
says the case is "baseless, non-viable (and) potentially unlawful." Andrew's team says he had not been properly served notice of proceedings despite Guiffre's side saying papers were served
at the prince's home in Windsor. Andrew's lawyers also say a 2009 settlement between Giuffre and Epstein released the duke from "any and all liability," though that settlement was and remains sealed.
Where does the case go from here? We asked two respected lawyers in the field who aren't involved in it: Amber Melville-Brown, head of the media and reputation practice at the international law firm Withers, and Nick Goldstone, head of dispute resolution at Ince.
This week, an English court agreed to serve the papers. Melville-Brown says, "it is a matter for the English court to determine the method of service when serving at the request of a foreign court" and that it can be via email, post or in person.
Once the papers are served, what happens?
Melville-Brown says Andrew would have four options: Ignore the claim; contest it; admit it; or, try to settle it. "None are particularly attractive," she adds, "although he and his team may consider the first and the last may be the least of a bad lot."
Goldstone adds it's a "fairly binary decision" for Prince Andrew's legal team: Either engage or evade.
Can he engage and defend his position?
Goldstone says Andrew could say to himself, "I'm not going to participate in this process, because it's outrageous, and I have further nothing to say." In effect, he would be refusing to submit to the jurisdiction of the court in this case.
"If he wants to engage and go through the process of civil trial," says Goldstone, "the simplest thing for him to do is to put in an acknowledgement and say to the New York court: 'Okay, I'm going to defend this, I'm going to fight this.' But as I understand it, he is under no obligation to respond and sometimes people choose not to respond because of all sorts of different reasons."
What if he does submit to the jurisdiction of a New York court?
"Then they are going to be fighting a case within the New York court procedural rules," says Goldstone, "and that brings with it all sorts of consequences, which may be good or may be bad, depending upon the outcome of that procedure. If you win a case, it's always a good decision. If you lose a case, it's more often looked upon as a bad decision. If you choose not to engage and submit to the jurisdiction of the New York court, you've got to consider what will the New York court do in your absence? Will it proceed in your absence in a detailed way? Will it proceed in your absence in the summary or default way? And what would the consequences be of an outcome that presumably would be negative because you're not there to defend yourself? And how enforceable would such a final outcome in a New York court be against you wherever? Obviously it will be enforceable in New York, but Prince Andrew isn't in New York."
What if he doesn't submit to the court and the court finds him guilty?
"He could argue that this is not a judgment that should be enforceable against him," Goldstone says, noting that Andrew has not participated in the New York court's proceedings or recognized its jurisdiction to date. The prince may therefore argue that a ruling by the court "shouldn't be enforced against him because it's not a claim that could be advanced in England," which doesn't have an equivalent to New York's Child Victims Act, says Goldstone. "And therefore, as a matter of public policy, English courts shouldn't recognize a judgment that has been obtained in a foreign court."
Will he be forced to appear in court?
Goldstone: "I believe if he chooses not to engage in, not to submit to the jurisdiction, there is no prospect of him being called to the US ... or being deposed or providing evidence or witness testimony in proceedings that he's not engaged in, that is n