In this paper, the case involving Eric and Cindy epitomizes a case whereby spouses are in total agreement until they decide to divorce. Both parties share responsibilities at their home and prior to their marriage, they had signed a prenuptial agreement. The wife disclosed much of her assets and the husband agreed to share the responsibilities at home. Nonetheless, since they have agreed to file a divorce and their case is an uncontested divorce, it looks simple. However, the challenge is that there is no clarity as to whether they have agreed on property division, child custody, and support issues. Since they have agreed to part ways, one of the spouses hires an attorney to prepare the obligatory paperwork. In this case, the wife will only be required to read and sign both the waiver and the final decree. Ethically, it is not possible to represent two parties in a divorce when there is a conflict of interest. If one attorney tries to represent the husband and the wife, in this case, he or she may face some problems. If the attorney takes a side and informs one party that the deal would make it possible for him or her to gain financially, it might anger one party. If the attorney manipulates any party to decide otherwise, the case is considered unethical. In fact, one attorney cannot represent two parties with conflict of interest. Getting an annulment is out of questions because it is a court order that a marriage never existed. Annulment could only be granted if the spouse was already married to someone else. Annulments are very rare. In this case, there is no such a case whereby the husband is claimed to have been married to someone else. However, the case indicates that the wife had mental issues, but still the issues never avoided her from agreeing to marry. She was not forced to marry, they all agreed. Annulment, in this case, is not appropriate because after realizing that the wife had mental problems, the husband was willing to continue with the married out of love.