Pierce County Sheriff Swank to Prosecutor Robnett: ‘You are my peril’
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Sheriff Swank challenged legal authority of Pierce County prosecutor Robnett.
- Court barred private attorney Mell from acting as Swank’s legal representative.
- Conflict centers on Swank’s push to cooperate with ICE, defying state law.
READ MORE
Pierce County sheriff v. prosecutor
A court case over a private attorney providing legal advice to the sheriff shows a fractured relationship between the two top elected officials.
Expand All
Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank’s conflicts with other elected leaders made its way to court on May 28 after an attorney acting as Swank’s lawyer served three county officials a demand for mediation over issues such as his desire to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
That demand, made on May 23, led the county’s elected prosecutor, Mary Robnett, to seek a judgment in Superior Court prohibiting the attorney, Joan Mell, from providing legal advice to Swank or other officials. According to Robnett, only the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office can act as Swank’s attorney.
“Joan K. Mell has unlawfully exercised the public office of the prosecuting attorney or deputy prosecuting attorney for the County of Pierce, State of Washington,” a copy of the complaint reads.
Robnett argued in part that Mell’s legal advice about Swank cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could expose the county to millions of dollars in potential liability. She said it’s unlawful for county officials to cooperate with ICE.
The state’s Keep Washington Working Act, a bipartisan law passed in 2019, limits law enforcement’s ability to work with ICE. Adams County was sued by the state Attorney General’s Office in March for allegedly helping federal authorities with immigration enforcement.
Superior Court Judge Susan Adams on the morning of May 28 granted Robnett a temporary restraining order.
Adams found that Mell was making legal demands on Swank’s behalf and that she wasn’t authorized to do so, according to a copy of the order, which expires at the next court hearing June 13.
Mell, an attorney with law offices in Fircrest and Montana, was out of state at the time of the hearing. According to an email provided by Mell, she was notified of the hearing the evening of May 27 via email. In a response the morning of May 28, Mell objected to not being heard on the motion, and she said she wanted the opportunity to object to the case being litigated in front of a Pierce County judge, particularly one with ties to the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office.
In a phone call with The News Tribune, Mell said she believed Robnett had incorrectly advised Swank and that Robnett was duty-bound as counsel to adhere to his requests, for example, challenging the Keep Washington Working Act, which Swank has called “unconstitutional.” Mell said Robnett had failed to adhere to Swank’s requests.
“Nothing she’s doing is consistent with lawyering,” Mell said. “Fundamental to lawyering is taking the direction from your client, figuring out a way to accomplish what your client wants you to accomplish and carrying out his objectives.”
Swank did not respond to a phone call the afternoon of May 28. Mell said he was out of the country and unavailable until June 8.
Emails show tense exchanges between Swank, Robnett
The breakdown of Swank’s relationship with Robnett appeared to begin with an executive order issued by County Executive Ryan Mello earlier in May declaring that all contracts that accept federal funding would be subject to a thorough review, and that all departments and elected officials would need to designate someone to review the contracts.
Swank emailed Robnett on May 13, asking if Mello had the authority to impose an executive order on him and what would happen if he didn’t abide by it, according to correspondence between Swank and Robnett filed in the court record.
Robnett responded the next morning that Mello had lawful authority because Swank’s elected position was created by the Pierce County Charter, which makes his position an executive department subject to executive orders.
Swank disagreed and said he would be seeking legal advice elsewhere.
Why Swank was upset by the executive order seemed to baffle Robnett, and she cautioned him that he wasn’t authorized to seek outside legal advice, saying he would be acting at his own “peril.”
“The Executive order from yesterday did not really change anything,” Robnett wrote. “I am a little confused about why this has struck such a nerve with you. I am an independently elected official and I am subject to the same contracting rules.”
Swank explained that if Mello could impose this order on him, it meant he would be subject to other orders and that Mello could tell him how to run his office.
“As far as ‘my own peril,’ you are my peril,” Swank said.
He told Robnett that he had asked the artificial-intelligence service ChatGPT the same question about Mello’s authority over him, and it had a “quite different response.”
“I have no faith in your counsel,” Swank wrote in the May 15 email. “I believe that you are either incompetent or you are trying to sabotage my office.”
Swank added that he believed Robnett was trying to cause him undue stress, and that it was planned because Robnett wanted his opponent in the 2024 General Election for sheriff to win over him.
“You didn’t want someone to upset the apple cart,” Swank said. “You wanted a sheriff who would go along with the program and keep everything status quo.”
Robnett responded later that day, thanking Swank for spelling out his position and suggesting that they meet with Mello to discuss where each of them fit into county government under the charter.
‘Lawyer for Sheriff Keith Swank’ demands mediation
About a week after Swank’s email exchange with Robnett, Mell emailed Robnett, Mello and County Council Chair Jani Hitchen a demand for mediation under RCW 36.46.010, a state law that requires elected officials to attempt to work out a dispute before a lawsuit can be brought.
Mell signed the demand letter “lawyer for Sheriff Keith Swank.” It said Swank had reached an impasse with the three officials on six issues: Sheriff’s Office independence and personnel, professional recruiting, the Humane Society, independent representation and a County Council resolution affirming compliance with the Keep Washington Working Act.
In regard to the independence of the Sheriff’s Office and its personnel, the letter claimed Mello could not require Swank to comply with any executive orders that conflict with Swank’s authority to carry out the core functions of his office. It said the County Council’s power over its personnel was limited to consenting to the number of deputies and other necessary employees.
“Sheriff Swank has the authority to adequately train his deputies,” the letter reads. “Should he deem it necessary to obtain training outside the state to do so, the Executive may not prevent the Sheriff from achieving this core function.”
Of recruiting, the letter said Mello and the County Council had undermined Swank by putting money in the general fund that his office acquired to use for recruitment by University Place. The Sheriff’s Office is contracted by University Place to provide them police services.
The letter also targeted the Humane Society for Tacoma & Pierce County’s relationship with the Sheriff’s Office, stating it depleted public safety dollars and was outside the purpose of the office. According to a 2018 report from the county, it contracted with the Humane Society for sheltering and licensing animals.
This story was originally published May 29, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
