re: Board of State Examiners of Plumbers 
    Meyer v. Ciarmataro

Dear Mr. Pucci,

From your recent letter to Mr. Thomas, the executive director
of the Plumbing Board, I infer that your client, Mr. Ciarmataro
will not appear at the Hearing scheduled for August 6, to defend
his Inspection Report and Condemnation Order of June 9, 2011
which you filed in his behalf in SUCV2008-05664.

At the Hearing, I shall construe this, Mr. Ciamataro's third failure 
to appear, as a refusal to confirm his Inspection Report and
Condemnation Order under oath, and hence as an admission of its fraudulence.
I have no reason to anticipate that the Board will impose any sanctions
on Mr. Ciarmataro for his conduct. It seems, however, not at all 
impossible that when this controversy once more comes to the attention
of the Appeals Court, that then, in order to preserve the public's
respect for the integrity of the Office of Consumer Affairs and 
Business Regulation, that Court will order the Plumbing Board to 
revoke Mr. Ciarmataro's plumbing License.

I respectfully draw your attention to the Amrican Bar Association's 
Canon of Professional Conduct:

Client-Lawyer Relationship
Rule 1.9 Duties To Former Clients

(a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter
shall not thereafter represent another person in the same
or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests
are materially adverse to the interests of the former client
unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

Mr. Ciamataro is a former client of yours. He declines to testify
at the Hearing about a legal document which he has signed and which 
you have filed for him because that document must speak for itself.
If, as I assert, that document is false, then requiring his testimony
under oath would compel him to incriminate himself in that he would have 
no choice a) if he asserted the truth of a false document to perjure himself, 
and thereby to commit yet another crime, or b) to confess a prior crime 
by admitting that he had fabricated a false document.

The interest of Mr. Ciarmataro is now adverse to the interest of the
Town of Nantucket. The interest of Mr. Ciarmataro is that the
case be dropped lest it come before the Appeals Court a third time, 
and he lose his plumbing license.  The Town, which is no longer
Mr. Ciarmataro's employer, is indifferent to Mr. Ciarmataro's interests
and wishes to pursue the litigation no matter what. The interests of your 
former client, Mr. Ciarmataro, and your present client, the Town of 
Nantucket, are now adverse.

Given that the interests of your former client, Mr. Ciarmataro, is
adverse to the interests of your present client, the Town of Nantucket,
you and your firm are prohibited by Rule 1.9 from continuing to represent 
the Town in this action.

Sincerely yours,
Ernst J. Meyer