Pierce County prosecutor says lawyer’s efforts to represent sheriff are criminal
Attorneys for Pierce County Prosecutor Mary Robnett said in a court filing on July 30 that the actions of a private lawyer seeking to represent Sheriff Keith Swank in his disputes with county officials are tantamount to a misdemeanor crime, raising tensions in the ongoing legal battle.
The lawyer, Joan Mell, called the accusation defamatory in a legal response and said Robnett should be sanctioned for violating a court rule meant to prohibit misuses of the judicial system by requiring that court motions be grounded in fact.
Robnett’s description of Mell’s attempts to represent Swank as criminal came in a July 30 filing in a lawsuit against Mell that seeks a permanent injunction barring her from giving legal advice to Swank. The motion was prompted by Mell notifying Robnett via email that she would be seeking the lawsuit’s dismissal on First Amendment grounds under Washington’s Uniform Public Expression Act. That law is designed to protect free speech from being threatened by lawsuits.
Mell’s email to Robnett said the prosecutor’s public comments to The News Tribune through her office’s spokesperson and threat of continued litigation were meant to intimidate her into ending her working relationship with Swank entirely. Mell said she would be seeking a $10,000 penalty under the law.
“I am not interested in being a chess piece in the political machinations of the prosecutor’s office,” Mell wrote to Robnett and her attorneys July 18.
In response, Robnett argued in a court filing that Mell was not entitled to the protections from litigation she was looking for because the First Amendment does not shield criminal conduct or civil suits brought by a victim of a crime.
“This action seeks to end an ongoing crime and to protect the citizens of Pierce County’s article I, section 1 right to consent to who may govern them and their article XI, section 5 right to select who may exercise the duties of the office of Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney,” Robnett’s July 30 motion states.
What crime is Robnett a victim of? According to her, “Intrusion into and refusal to surrender public office,” or RCW 42.20.030. It is a gross misdemeanor.
The claim that Mell has intruded on Robnett’s duties as elected prosecutor is what the lawsuit is all about, and so far Superior Court judges in Pierce and King counties have agreed that Mell has overstepped. In June, King County Superior Court Judge Michael Ryan granted Robnett a preliminary injunction prohibiting Mell from holding herself out as Swank’s attorney in his official capacity as sheriff, finding that it is a primary function of the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office to provide legal advice to county officials.
The conflict between Robnett, Mell and Swank appears to be escalating with Robnett’s invocation of criminal conduct in what has so far been a civil legal dispute. Because Robnett filed the lawsuit against a private attorney rather than Swank himself, it has avoided becoming a legal dogfight between two elected officials that could signal breakdowns in the relationship between the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and the Sheriff’s Office.
Perhaps not for long. On Aug. 6, Mell filed a legal answer to Robnett’s original complaint in the lawsuit that asserts Swank should be joined to the suit as a cross defendant. Mell said the preliminary injunction entered in the case has disrupted Swank’s right to exercise the core functions of his office, and that Robnett and others were invading his executive privilege.
“... It is his retention of Mell and her assertion of his rights that are at issue,” Mell wrote.
Ryan will now consider whether Mell’s email about seeking dismissal under Washington’s Uniform Public Expression Act has affected the status of the preliminary injunction. Ryan will also decide a motion from Robnett asking to deny Mell a faster way to dismiss the lawsuit on First Amendment grounds.
The preliminary injunction stemmed from a demand for mediation Mell served Robnett, County Executive Ryan Mello and County Council Chair Jani Hitchen on May 23. It said Swank had reached an impasse with them on six issues, including his intention to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and a disagreement over whether he was subject to Mello’s executive orders.
Since Mell was temporarily barred from acting as Swank’s attorney, the sheriff has complained publicly on social media and in a radio appearance about not being allowed to hand pick his own lawyer. In court filings, he has said he believes he has the right to private counsel to bring claims against the county and county officials. Swank also has offered Mell a job as a strategic advisor, which Mell has said she believes she can’t accept because of the injunction.
On Aug. 5, in a legal response to Robnett’s motion saying Mell didn’t have a First Amendment right to represent Swank, Mell more fully explained why she wants to represent him, stating simply that she wants him to succeed.
“At this stage of my career, I help who I want to help,” Mell wrote. “The choices I make in who I work for reflect in part where I want to invest my name, reputation, business, time, and resources because I believe in the law, policies, politics, and people at issue.”
Mell went on to say that Swank was being “maligned and bullied” by self-interested politicians and officials, and Mell was exercising the First Amendment when she works with him.
Mell also argued that Robnett was trying to use this lawsuit against her as an “investigatory fishing expedition” to expose communications between Swank and ICE so he can be criminally prosecuted for violating the Keep Washington Working Act, a state law that prohibits cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.
Robnett’s original complaint in the lawsuit asked that Mell be ordered to turn over all of her correspondence with Swank, but Mell has said she does not have any communications with ICE that implicate the sheriff.
Adam Faber, a spokesperson for the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, told The News Tribune the idea that the lawsuit is a fishing expedition doesn’t make much sense when you consider that they are talking about public records — Swank is a public official, so communications with him would likely be considered public record. Faber also said it had been conveyed to Mell’s attorney, Brett Purtzer, that the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office didn’t see the need for either party to conduct discovery.
“So consider the logic of that: We didn’t seek discovery, but she says we’re on a ‘fishing expedition’? It doesn’t make much sense,” Faber said.
The lawsuit, Faber said, is to stop someone from performing the duties of a public office that she doesn’t hold.
On Aug. 6, Mell filed counter claims against Robnett, accusing her of violating her constitutional rights and claiming that Robnett has adopted an unconstitutional policy that she might be the sole legal advisor to Swank or other county officials.
This story was originally published August 8, 2025 at 5:15 AM.
