Private lawyer warned over attempts to advise Pierce County sheriff in emails

A King County judge said Thursday he was very troubled by emails that showed a private attorney had tried to give Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank legal advice this week in violation of his orders.

Superior Court Judge Michael Ryan opted not to sanction the lawyer, Joan Mell, who Pierce County Prosecutor Mary Robnett has sued for allegedly invading her core functions as sole legal advisor to county officials. Ryan said he would show Mell some grace.

But Ryan likely won’t look as kindly on future violations of his June 16 preliminary injunction that barred Mell from acting as a lawyer for the sheriff. Next time, he said, he would investigate Mell for contempt of court.

“If there is ultimately discovery in this case, and it uncovers that you’ve been having discussions with Sheriff Swank, after my injunction has been issued, related to anything that addresses his official duties, and it’s legal in nature, you can expect the court will not take that lightly,” Ryan said. “And we’ll do a full and thorough investigation to see whether or not you are in contempt.

“You cc’ing Sheriff Swank, at his county address and then giving legal advice as to how he should do things is a violation of my order, but I’m giving you a pass this time,” Ryan said. “But it’s not going to happen again.”

Mell said she appreciated Ryan’s deference but that she did not intentionally copy Swank on the email in his official capacity. Ryan, seeming in disbelief, told the attorney that if she thought it was the email that makes the distinction here, she was “sorely mistaken.”

“No, I don’t because I understand the court is substantively concerned about it,” Mell said. “So I appreciate what the court is saying, but I didn’t want it, the court to —”

Ryan interjected: “For the record, Ms. Mell, how did he get there, on the email? … Did you cc him?”

“I did, but I didn’t intend to do it to him in his official capacity,” Mell said. “He’s my client. I wanted to include him.”

This tense exchange came near the end of a Zoom court hearing meant to decide a host of issues, including whether Mell had acted appropriately Aug. 6, when she joined Swank as a cross defendant to the case in her legal answer to Robnett’s original complaint.In an Aug. 21 court hearing held via Zoom, King County Superior Court Judge Michael Ryan struck attorney Joan Mell’s pleadings that asserted Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank should be joined as a cross defendant to a lawsuit where Prosecuting Attorney Mary Robnett has sought to prohibit Mell from providing legal advice to Swank. Peter Talbot/The News Tribune

That action created “chaos,” Ryan said, and confusion for Swank, who went back and forth this week over whether he wanted to be a defendant in the case. Attorneys for Robnett moved to strike it from the record, noting that only Mell was accused of unlawfully performing the functions of the prosecuting attorney, and it would be improper for anyone else to be named as a defendant. Ryan granted the motion to strike portions of the answer and told Mell she needed to file a new one within 10 days.

Joining Swank to the lawsuit also appears to have given rise to the emails that Ryan said ran afoul of his orders. Emails show private attorney’s communications with Swank

On a Friday morning, two days after Mell asserted Swank should be joined to the lawsuit, Swank was served with summons in a parking lot for the Sheriff’s Office.

The following Monday, he emailed Robnett to ask if she would be representing him. According to court records, this led Robnett to have her office determine whether Swank was entitled to conflict counsel, and former San Juan County Prosecuting Attorney Randy Gaylord was subsequently re-appointed as a special deputy prosecuting attorney for the sheriff.

By the end of the week, Mell was emailing with Gaylord and cc’ing Swank, court records show.

“I propose we confer for purposes of seeing whether we can articulate Swank’s position in a declaration on both his personal capacity claims and defenses and his official capacity defenses … ,” Mell wrote Aug. 15.

Two days later, Gaylord emailed Swank to inform him that he would be filing documents in support of a motion to dismiss him from the case for failure to state a claim against him as a cross defendant. The following evening, after Gaylord had already made those filings, Swank replied, telling Gaylord he wasn’t authorized to file this on his behalf.

“I do not agree with it,” Swank wrote. “This is not the position I want to take. I want my constitutional rights asserted in my professional and personal positions. I want to be in this action.”

The next morning, Aug. 19, Swank forwarded his emails with Gaylord to Robnett and a Risk Management employee. He called the attorney’s actions “lawfare” and stated he didn’t feel he was receiving proper counsel.

“This case is so convoluted now, that I do not know what is happening, and my legal advisor appears to be working on behalf of the plaintiff (Robnett) and not me,” Swank wrote.

A little more than an hour later, Mell sent Gaylord a lengthy email and again cc’ed Swank. She told Gaylord she believed he was duty-bound to inform the court that Swank had not authorized his pleadings, and she asserted that Swank had the right to be heard. She listed seven issues she said Swank had raised.

“I am available to confer with you and the Sheriff to clarify the Sheriff’s objectives and the limits of what I can do without further leave and what you can do that he authorizes,” Mell said.Joan Mell, right, looks toward the judge during a hearing for a civil case where Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney Mary Robnett is seeking to bar Mell from acting as Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank’s attorney on Monday, June 16, 2025, at the King County Courthouse in Seattle, Wash. Liesbeth Powers/Liesbeth Powers / lpowers@thenewstribune.com

In court Thursday, Gaylord said he had a message from Swank to convey to the court. Swank isn’t sure how to be heard in this case, Gaylord said, but he wants the judge to hear from him. And Swank now approved of Gaylord’s filing to remove him as a cross defendant.

Ryan, summing up the arguments of the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, said Mell’s actions were effectively an attempt to require the office to give Swank counsel. Mell disputes report on mediation meeting

Mell was clearly beginning to frustrate Robnett’s attorneys. While giving her argument on why Mell could not join Swank as a cross defendant, Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Michelle Luna told Ryan a pattern had begun to emerge.

If you connect the dots, Luna said, the theme was that Mell was trying to manipulate and remove the peace that Ryan tried to bring with his preliminary injunction.

“Every time Pierce County conducts government business, she is whispering in someone’s ear and disrupting it,” Luna said.

This case started because of legal advice Mell gave Swank that resulted in a demand for mediation on what Luna described as six “very garden variety” topics. These included Swank’s desire to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and a disagreement over whether he was subject to County Executive Ryan Mello’s executive orders.

Luna reminded the court that all of the parties Swank had demanded mediation with met July 2 to do just that. According to a court filing from Robnett that detailed the meeting, Swank withdrew three items of contention and the rest were resolved. Swank reportedly acknowledged that Robnett was his legal counsel, that the County Charter is what creates his position as sheriff rather than the constitution, and said he has no intention of enforcing immigration laws.

But Mell has disputed whether those issues were actually resolved, writing in her legal answer that the purported mediation was an “informal meeting.” She said Gaylord prepared meeting minutes that included edits from Robnett, and that Swank doesn’t agree that Gaylord accurately reflected his positions.

Luna said agreements had been reached on the six topics, but that wasn’t enough for Mell. Luna said the county did not take lightly the amount of resources it has dispensed for this case. She said she didn’t see any basis to bring Swank in as a cross defendant.

“And when I look at the preliminary injunction, which is kind of a ‘Stop doing that,’ I think [Mell] has just continued on like a freight train through that order and through these court’s directions,” Luna said.