Kieran R. Hawson
Kieran Hawson is a litigator with a practice focused on complex commercial disputes and international arbitration. He represents clients in federal and state court, as well as international and domestic arbitral tribunals. His experience spans a variety of issues, including contract disputes, property disputes, and international business. His clients include multi-state domestic corporations, multinational corporations, small businesses, and individual clients.
Before and during his time in law school, Kieran worked as a paralegal for a law firm handling primarily construction and property disputes. He also interned at the United States Department of Agriculture and Canadian National Railroad, where he gained valuable subject matter knowledge in the areas of environmental, administrative, and transportation law.
Practice Area
Panel
- Contributing Author
Qualified Year
- 2025
Membership
- District of Columbia Bar Association
Qualifications
- Juris Doctorate (2025)
- Bachelor of Science: Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (2021)
Education
- The George Washington University Law School (2025)
- University of Northern Colorado (2021)
1 Contributions by Kieran R. Hawson
PRACTICE NOTES
Anti-suit injunctions supporting New York-seated international arbitration: US federal and New York state tests, comity considerations and relief
This Practice Note considers the availability of anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration from New York courts.
LexisNexis® UK does not report citations to US judgments. Parties that have committed to arbitration may, once a dispute surfaces, reconsider that choice—particularly if one believes a court might deliver a more advantageous result. However, Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) obliges courts to stay proceedings ‘brought in any of the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration...until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement’, so long as the party seeking the stay has not ‘default in proceeding with such arbitration’ or otherwise relinquished its right to arbitrate (9 U.S.C. § 3; Katz v Cellco P’ship, 794 F.3d 341, 345 (2d Cir. 2015)).
For years, US federal courts disagreed on whether, in the face of a valid arbitration agreement, a court should dismiss the case or simply stay it. The US Supreme Court has now addressed that divergence in Smith v Spizzirri, 601 U.S....
Arbitration
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
