Small-claims courts were created 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 exhibit significant variation. After overviewing the different ways language/discourse styles and ideology have been conceptualized, we provide background on small-claims court and describe the data. The centerpiece of this article is an analysis of three cases taken from judges in different small-claims courts. We show 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, we suggest 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.