Pierce County sheriff used private lawyer for official work. Who pays the bill?
Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank has been at loggerheads with other elected officials in the first six months of his term, conflicts that have roped in two attorneys and portend more lawsuits. So who pays the bill?
So far the county is on the hook for as much as $16,000 for an attorney charging $400 an hour to advise Swank on six issues over which he’s locked horns with County Executive Ryan Mello, Prosecutor Mary Robnett and County Council Chair Jani Hitchen.
Swank has expressed disdain over not being able to hand-pick his own attorney and already has been advised by — and been barred from officially consulting with — a private lawyer who served Mello, Robnett and Hitchen a demand for mediation in May. No county funds have been committed to the attorney, Joan Mell, for her services, but she and Swank have made it clear they will see compensation for work she has already done.
The May 23 demand for mediation that triggered events said Swank had reached an impasse with Mello, Robnett and Hitchen over his desire to work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (a violation of state law), the independence of the Sheriff’s Office from being subject to Mello’s executive orders (a violation of the county charter) and four other issues.
By sending that mediation letter and giving Swank legal advice about it, Mell stepped on Robnett’s toes and disenfranchised the voters of Pierce County, a King County judge ruled in a June 16 hearing. The state constitution, the county charter and case law all acknowledge that one of the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office’s primary duties is providing legal advice to county officials, Judge Michael Ryan said, and Mell intruded on it.
Ryan issued a preliminary injunction stopping Mell from representing Swank in an official capacity. That is in effect pending further court orders. The next hearing is set for late September.
In the meantime, Robnett has appointed former San Juan County prosecutor Randy Gaylord to advise Swank on the issues contained in the demand for mediation. According to the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, it’s a temporary designation that goes from June 2 to July 10 with a contract capped at $16,000.
In response to questions from The News Tribune, Swank said he “didn’t ask” for Gaylord and wants Mell to be his attorney. He said Mell was going to represent him for free.
Mell said that was true, but that doesn’t mean she’s not going to try to figure out a way for the county to compensate her for work that’s been done. She said she agreed to represent Swank because she believes in what he’s doing, and she said there’s value in having a sheriff who will stand up to the Prosecutor’s Office.
“I have been paid nothing,” Mell said. “I have no contractual expectation that he’s going to pay me personally. If he can’t get the county to pay, I will be doing it pro bono.”
In a June 25 written order that followed the hearing, Ryan said the question of whether Swank was entitled to fees he paid for Mell’s advice wasn’t presently before him, and nothing in his order should be taken as an indication of how he might rule on a request like that going forward.
In Swank’s statements to The News Tribune, he pointed out what he sees as a double standard on who in county government can select their own legal advisor. Swank said Mello has several attorneys on his staff who he picked.
Mello does have two lawyers on staff, Julie Murray, whose title is executive counsel, and John Lane, whose title is senior counsel. A spokesperson for the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Adam Faber, said former County Executive Bruce Dammeier also had staff with “counsel” titles , but that County Council and Mello are aware that those individuals are not their attorneys, and any advice they give is not subject to attorney-client privilege because of that.
The Prosecuting Attorney’s Office works as a sort of in-house law firm for Pierce County and represents it in any civil legal matters, and state law, RCW 36.27.020, makes it so the elected prosecutor is the sole legal advisor for all county officials.
Whatever the outcome of Robnett’s civil lawsuit against Mell, more lawsuits likely are coming.
Mell said she would be suing Pierce County for violating her constitutional rights. In a court filing seeking to dismiss the temporary restraining order placed May 28 on Mell, her attorney said the order was unconstitutional, that it must be vacated with fees and costs awarded to Mell.
Ryan noted that Mell’s procedural due process rights were violated by the entry of the temporary restraining order in his written court order, but he also said he didn’t find that it was done intentionally to violate Mell’s constitutional right and declined to award her attorney fees.
Mell’s due process rights were violated because although Mell objected to the temporary restraining order in an email, her concerns were not considered during the hearing about whether it should be imposed.
“Once counsel understood that Ms. Mell’s objection was not received by the court, it was incumbent upon them to promptly seek a recess in the proceedings so that the court could consider her objections,” Ryan wrote. “For reasons unclear to this Court, neither counsel nor the court, recessed the hearing to allow Ms. Mell’s objections to be considered.
Mell said she also plans to sue Mello and the County Council, claiming that their resolutions and executive orders step on the core functions of Swank’s office.
That could happen as soon as Aug. 21, the end of a 90-day waiting period required 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. That law is what prompted Mell to serve Mello, Hitchen and Robnett a demand for mediation in the first place.
This story was originally published July 7, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
