Small-claims courts were generated to help ordinary people settle “small” disputes quickly and cheaply and were designed to be relatively informal. A consequence of the justice system’s commitment to informality is that small-claims trials display significant variation. After overviewing the different ways language/discourse styles and ideology have been conceptualized, this paper supplies background on small-claims court and describes the data. The centerpiece of this paper is an assay of three cases taken from judges in different small-claims courts. It displays that judges vary in how they (a) open a trial and frame what they will be doing, (b) announce and justify their decision, and (c) question litigants and solicit their stories. In concluding, it is proposed how the style manifested by a judge accomplishes ideological work, instantiating different understanding of justice and what a reasonable relationship between ordinary disputants and the state should be.