I first met my conflict of interest at the Hall of Justice in San Francisco in 1994.

She was as smart and beautiful then -- my conflict of interest, not the Hall of Justice -- as she is today. I didn't know she was going to be my conflict. She didn't know I was going to create professional problems for her.

My wife, Elisabeth Frater, was a prosecutor in San Francisco, and I covered the criminal courts for a San Francisco newspaper. The conflict of interest, of course, only arose after we became close. Should I avoid writing about her? Should I tell my editor about my personal life? If other sources mention her, do I reveal the connection?

These questions were never far from my mind. They came to the surface recently, when the Register editorial board met with politicos including my wife's law partner, Charles Gravett III. Gravett is a member of the Napa County Democratic Central Committee, and was one of four Democrats who met with the editorial board.

Gravett didn't stand to make any money off the meeting. Neither did I. So where's the possible conflict?

Gravett's name would appear in the paper, and readers might suspect I would be inclined to give him favorable treatment. Is that what happened? Decide for yourself. We published an account of that meeting Wednesday ("A look at local Democrats").

The potential for conflict is a minefield for newspapers. Things seem even more treacherous in a community of Napa's size, where a relatively small core of people shape the issues of the day -- then go home to be coaches, church leaders and volunteers alongside others.

Our newsroom ethics guide reads: "Do not play a role in reporting, editing or shaping policy on coverage of any organization that you belong to, support or have a direct interest in."

In short, we must do everything in our power to maintain credibility with readers. If we even appear to be compromised in our news coverage, we are not serving our mission and we risk losing your trust.

In this case, I informed my editorial board colleagues about the connection before the meeting, saying I would skip it if they thought it best. At the meeting, I noted the connection and that the Register would reveal it to readers.

That was a close encounter of one kind. There have been others, and there will be more. My wife and I have had a deal from the start that we won't jeopardize our endeavors by trading on sensitive information. She'd be crazy and unethical to compromise her clients. I'd be stupid and unethical to compromise the newspaper. Who can police this? Realistically, only we can.

More than once, my wife has declined to tell me about the most interesting part of her day because it was not in her or her client's interest for the Register to know. What could I do? Hypnotize her?

One conflict-related incident occurred soon after we became close. I was writing some tough stories about her boss, San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan. We happened to be standing next to him at a social function, and another person attempted to introduce us. Did the DA know Elisabeth and Bill?

Sure, Hallinan said. "One works for me, and one works against me."

Funny guy. But this is serious stuff, and we treat it that way.