A Vancouver attorney has filed a motion for the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office to be disqualified from the case due to the actions of Senior Deputy Prosecutor Laurel Smith

Ken Vance, editor
Clark County Today

The candidate running unopposed to be the next prosecuting attorney in Clark County is the subject of a motion recently filed to disqualify the County’s Prosecuting Attorney’s Office as prosecutor in a case currently in Superior Court.

Vancouver Attorney Neil Anderson filed the motion on June 24 on behalf of the defendant in a case in which the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office is representing the state of Washington, the plaintiff. The motion asks for the appointment of a special prosecutor. A hearing on the motion is set for Wed., July 8 at 8:30 a.m. in front of Judge Robert A. Lewis.

Laurel Smith is currently a senior deputy prosecutor in the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. She was the assigned prosecutor on the case, the state of Washington vs. Steven Ward. In the declaration of counsel in the motion filed to disqualify the prosecuting attorney’s office, Anderson listed his reasons for the request.

Anderson stated that on June 9 he received an email from Smith that she had reassigned the case to fellow prosecutor Cord McCabe. Anderson claims Smith gave no reason in that email for the reason she had reassigned the case. On June 18, Anderson says that he received another email from Smith, this time indicating the reason for the reassignment was that she had started dating Vancouver Police Sergeant James Dewey, who was one of the lead investigative officers on the case.

Anderson then emailed Smith on June 22, asking to confirm the date she began dating Dewey. Anderson reported that Smith answered that the relationship began June 2.

The motion argues that:

• Sgt. Dewey played a significant role in the investigation, including authoring probable cause statements, interviewing the defendant, and testifying during a hearing on May 20, less than two weeks before Smith says they started dating.
• Smith personally prosecuted the case and conducted Dewey’s direct examination during that hearing before disclosing the relationship.
• Although the case has been reassigned to McCabe, McCabe reports to Smith, who supervises the Children’s Justice Center prosecution unit.
• Smith is running unopposed for Clark County prosecutor and is expected to become the elected prosecutor in January 2027, meaning she will ultimately oversee the entire office. She was the only candidate to file for the position during filing week May 4-8.
• The relationship creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest, even if no actual misconduct occurred, and could undermine public confidence in the fairness of the prosecution.

To support its argument, the motion cites Washington appellate decisions and the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Professional Responsibility regarding the appearance of fairness and avoiding even the appearance of professional impropriety.

As an exhibit, the filing includes a screenshot of a Vancouver Police Department X post from Sept. 26, 2025, announcing Dewey’s promotion to sergeant. The defense notes that Smith appears in a photograph from the promotion ceremony, arguing it suggests their relationship may have begun earlier than June 2026, although the filing does not present direct evidence establishing that.

On Monday (June 29), Clark County Today emailed six questions to Smith, who responded with the following statement.

“My husband and I amicably separated earlier this year,’’ she wrote in an email reply. “I began my new relationship with Sergeant Dewey in June of 2026. Immediately thereafter, I reassigned the cases in which he had an investigative role, disclosed the relationship to the defense attorneys in those cases, and screened myself from any oversight of them. These actions go above and beyond what the law or the Rules of Professional Conduct require. The integrity of this office’s criminal cases and my commitment to ensure that victims of crime receive justice are, and will always be, my highest priorities.’’

Smith’s husband, Colin Hayes, is still listed on the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office organizational chart as a senior deputy prosecutor. Smith told Clark County Today that the couple is currently “separated.’’ As for Hayes’ employment at the PA’s office, Smith said, “Yes, he still works here and will continue to work here. If you have questions about the supervisory structure with that, please reach out to our chief civil deputy.’’

Clark County Today will continue to seek clarification on the roles at the PA’s office of both Smith and Hayes going forward.

A potential conflict in PA’s office

A source explained to Clark County Today that having the elected prosecutor employing a spouse seems to violate county ethics rules. The Charter gives the elected prosecuting attorney the exclusive authority to appoint and retain deputy prosecutors and other personnel within the office. That authority necessarily includes decisions regarding hiring, continued employment, compensation, discipline, evaluation, promotion, assignment, and termination.

The Charter simultaneously imposes an independent ethical limitation. Section 5.7 prohibits county officials from using their official position to secure employment or special employment privileges for themselves or others.

“The exercise of appointment authority in favor of one’s spouse is precisely the type of circumstance the Charter seeks to prevent,’’ a source explained to Clark County Today.

The county’s Human Resources policies appear to reinforce this conclusion. Policy 13.1 prohibits county officials and employees from using their positions to secure special privileges or benefits for themselves or others and requires employment decisions to be free from personal influence. Policy 13.10 (Nepotism) goes further by defining prohibited conflicts to include situations in which an employee has authority to appoint, supervise, evaluate, discipline, terminate, or otherwise influence the terms and conditions of employment of a family member. The policy expressly recognizes not only actual conflicts, but also potential conflicts and appearances of impropriety.

“These provisions operate together rather than independently,’’ the source stated. “The Charter grants the prosecuting attorney the legal authority to appoint deputy prosecutors, while the ethics provisions restrict how that authority may be exercised. Because the elected prosecutor cannot divest herself of the statutory authority to appoint and remove deputy prosecutors, every employment decision affecting a spouse necessarily involves the exercise of official authority over a close family member. Even if day-to-day supervision could be delegated, the fundamental appointment and retention authority remains with the elected official.

“Accordingly, the Clark County Charter and Human Resources policies independently prohibit an elected official from exercising appointment and employment authority in a manner that secures or maintains employment for a spouse or places the official in a position to influence the spouse’s employment.

“In short, the elected prosecuting attorney’s continuing statutory authority over the appointment and retention of deputy prosecutors creates exactly the conflict of interest and appearance of favoritism that the Charter and county policies were designed to prevent.’’