BY BOBBY HARRISON

Daily Journal Jackson Bureau

JACKSON - A majority of the work done by the Mississippi Supreme Court is conducted in secret as the nine justices write legal opinions and develop rules for trial court judges to follow.

On a fairly routine basis, they operate in public as they listen to oral arguments of cases being appealed from the trial courts to them. But the majority of what is known about where the nine justices stand is gleaned from the decisions they render from behind those close doors.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the state and hears appeals of cases from circuit and chancery court. Because of that powerful, though not very public position, the justices, elected to eight-year terms, are caught in the middle of the current debate about whether Mississippi's civil justice system is fair to the business community and to doctors.

Many in the business community claim part of the reason that the civil justice system is not fair to them is that the Supreme Court is tilted toward the trial attorneys who file lawsuits against businesses.

''The key word we use is fair,'' said Jerry McBride, president of the Mississippi Manufacturers Association. "We don't say we want business judges. We want fair judges.''

When Dr. Ken Davis, chief medical officer of Tupelo-based North Mississippi Health Services, says Mississippi should adopt civil justice changes similar to those approved in Alabama, he includes the changes on the Supreme Court made in Alabama.

The changes on the court, of course, were not made in the Legislature, but at the polls. Alabama elected judges that were viewed as more business friendly.

Davis and others say that is what Mississippians need to do.

Up for interpretation

But trial attorneys, such as Shane Langston, former president of the Mississippi Trial Lawyers Association, said the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have only interpreted the laws approved by the Legislature. And that interpretation has been fair.

Generally, attorneys who are the closest observers of the Supreme Court are reluctant to discuss specific justices because most all lawyers ultimately have cases that are decided by the state's highest court.

But most interviewed agree that two distinct coalitions have formed on the court. A coalition viewed as friendly to trial attorneys consists of colorful and controversial Charles "Chuck'' McRae of Pascagoula, Charles Easley of Columbus, Oliver Diaz of Biloxi and James Graves of Jackson.

Even some business supporters say it might still be too early to say definitively where Graves stands. He was appointed to the court last year by Gov. Ronnie Musgrove to fill a vacancy created when Fred Banks resigned.

The joinder

It was a coalition of McRae, Easley, Diaz, the now retired Banks and Chief Justice Edwin Pittman of Hattiesburg who wrote the majority decision in the landmark American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida vs. Alexander case. The 2001 decision, written before Graves was appointed to the Supreme Court, continues the practice of allowing numerous people to join in the same lawsuit.

The practice is called joinder and is opposed by many in the business community.

McRae, Diaz, Graves, Pittman, Easley and George Carlson of Batesville formed the majority decision in a May 2002 decision that said Mississippi juries could award "hedonic damages'' for the loss of enjoyment of life to the family members who sue on behalf of a deceased individual. Business groups say Mississippi is among only five states that allow "hedonic damages'' to family members.

The swing votes

Carlson, who Musgrove appointed last year, and Pittman are generally seen as swing votes on the court.

The three who are viewed as consistently business friendly and formed the minority decision in the American Bankers case and the hedonic case are James Smith of Rankin County, Kay Cobb of Oxford and William Waller Jr. of Jackson.

A veteran general practice attorney, who asked not to be identified, said, "There are the votes on the court to shape an opinion in either direction (business friendly or trial attorney friendly.) It depends on the individual issue.''