Kirsten Taylor

  • Staff Attorney
  • Washington, DC
  • ktaylor@hausfeld.com
  • +1 202 540 7159
Kirsten Taylor Bw Photo

OVERVIEW

Kirsten is a Staff Attorney in Hausfeld's Washington, DC office. She joined the firm following her graduation, summa cum laude, from Gonzaga University School of Law, where she pursued a concentration in Civil and Human Rights.

At Gonzaga, Kirsten served as an Associate Editor of the Gonzaga Law Review and worked as a research assistant examining the efficacy of online legal education. She also externed for the Honorable Judges Szambelan and Beggs of the Spokane Superior Court, drafting bench memoranda and researching case and statutory law across a varied civil and criminal docket, and she completed a Public Policy Legal Fellowship at RAINN, where she supported the development and advancement of survivor centered legislation at the state and federal levels. In addition, she gained litigation experience at a boutique criminal defense firm in Spokane and a public-interest firm in Fairfax, Virginia, where she prepared motions, briefs, and educational materials. Coursework in Antitrust, alongside her human rights studies, drew her toward plaintiff-side advocacy on behalf of victims of anticompetitive and predatory business practices.

EDUCATION

Gonzaga University School of Law, J.D., summa cum laude, 2026

Pennsylvania State University, B.A., International Politics, 2023

BAR ADMISSIONS

*Not admitted to the DC bar. Supervised by Partners of the firm.

AFFILIATIONS

American Bar Association - International Law Section, Member (2026 - Present)

Gonzaga Law Review, Associate Editor (2024–2026)

Sandy Williams Legal Clinic, Volunteer (2023 – 2024)

EXPERIENCE

Antitrust/Competition

  • In re CCELL Closed Cannabis Oil Vaporization Systems and Components Products Litigation - Hausfeld represents direct purchasers alleging that Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co. Ltd. (Smoore)  and its authorized distributors conspired to fix the prices for CCELL-branded vapes and components and to not compete for each other’s CCELL customers in violation of the Sherman Act. The direct purchasers allege that the defendants’ agreement artificially inflated the prices paid by direct purchasers of these products.