Attоrney Aаrоn wаs аpprоached by Husband Harry and Wife Willow who had decided to dissolve their marriage. They had no children and had worked out a tentative mutual property settlement. They did not want to retain separate lawyers because they hoped to save money and believed that working with one attorney was more likely to result in a reasonably amicable dissolution. Before coming to Attorney Aaron, they had drafted and each had signed a written agreement not to run up the costs and increase the adversarial nature of the dissolution by retaining separate lawyers.Attorney Aaron believed that he was able to provide competent and diligent representation to both Husband Harry and Wife Willow. Attorney Aaron consulted with both independently concerning the implications of the common representation, including the advantages and risks involved and the effect on their respective attorney-client privileges. Attorney Aaron reduced the disclosures to writing in the form of a written retainer agreement and gave them each several days to consult independent legal counsel if they so desired. Husband Harry and Wife Willow each chose not to consult independent counsel.After six months of reasonably amicable negotiations, Wife Willow announced that she had changed her mind about the representation and had decided to retain her own lawyer. However, after Husband Harry and Attorney Aaron insisted that she was obligated to adhere to her prior written agreement, Wife Willow reluctantly agreed to abide by it. Attorney Aaron was then able to draft a property settlement agreement satisfactory to both parties.Is Attorney Aaron subject to discipline for his conduct in the representation?