I'm fairly sure it was the new courthouse in Taunton - twenty-one years of district courts blur together at the edges, but the wallet I remember perfectly. A judge, mid-bluster, threatened to make me personally pay court costs. Improv has one rule: yes, and. So I took out my wallet, right there at counsel table, and started producing hundred-dollar bills. I watched a man go from blustering to flabbergasted without passing through any of the intermediate emotions. It remains the best negotiation I've ever conducted without saying a word.
Start with the audit → Email Russell See ServicesThree things were in that courtroom, and only two of them behaved the way courtrooms expect.
Judges threaten costs the way parents count to three - it's a lever, and the lever works because lawyers flinch. The threat's entire power supply is the flinch: the apology, the backpedal, the visible recalculation of the afternoon. It is not really about the money. Court costs in district court wouldn't ruin anyone's week. It's about who controls the room.
The point: most threats are priced in fear, not dollars. The first thing to do with any threat is check what it actually costs, because the number is usually smaller than the tone.
I played poker seriously in those years, which meant I carried a bankroll - and a poker player hears "I'll make you pay" as a number, not a feeling. Improv has one rule and I applied it: yes, and. Out came the wallet. Out came the hundreds. No argument, no apology, just a man visibly prepared to settle up and waiting, respectfully, to hear the amount.
The point: agreeing harder than the other side expected is the fastest way to find out whether a threat was ever real. A price you can pay calmly was never leverage - it was just a price.
Blustering to flabbergasted, no intermediate emotions. The script called for a flinch, and the scene partner had gone off book. When a threat gets accepted cheerfully, the person who made it has to decide, in real time and in public, what it was actually for - and there is no dignified answer to that question available from the bench.
The point: the moment a threat is treated as an invoice, the threatener becomes the one with the problem. I did not invent this. Every poker player who has ever called a big bluff knows the face.
Let me be clear about what this wasn't. It wasn't contempt, and it wasn't performed disrespect - I'd been in front of that judge before and I'd be in front of him again, and everything about the gesture said "of course, Your Honor, how much?" Which is precisely what made it impossible to answer. Costs are a lawful sanction; being willing to pay them is not an offense. I had simply accepted the threat at face value, faster and more literally than anyone in the room was prepared for. The record would have shown an attorney cooperating enthusiastically with the court.
Do I recommend this? I do not. Was it wise? Almost certainly not. But bad choices make good stories, and I've been getting mileage out of this one ever since, which is a better return than most of my wise choices ever paid.
And if my war stories have a running theme, this is it: people come to the table with tricks, convinced they hold leverage - and every trick assumes a normal opponent. None of them has a contingency for someone who appears to be a lunatic and is not clearly breaking any rules. The judge had a script for a flinching lawyer; he did not have one for a man cheerfully counting hundreds. Braintree had a script for a fake cop; it did not have one for a car that announces its own fiction on the door panel. Leverage is a prediction about how you'll behave. Break the prediction - lawfully - and the leverage never arrives.
A threat you can pay calmly was never a threat. It was a price with sound effects.
Here's why the story survived all these years in my rotation: it's the cleanest demonstration I have of a rule that runs through poker, courtrooms, and marketing alike - read what a thing actually costs before you react to how it sounds. A losing poker player responds to the size of the bet's story; a winning one responds to the size of the bet. A nervous lawyer responds to the judge's tone; a prepared one responds to the sanction's actual weight. And a firm that's never done the math responds to a vendor's threat - "your competitors are signing up," "rates go up Friday," "you'll lose your placement" - with a checkbook, when five minutes of arithmetic would show the threatened loss costs less than the protection being sold.
Marketing vendors bluster exactly like that judge did. The pitch that pressures you is priced in fear: urgency, scarcity, the competitor who is allegedly about to take your spot. The counter-move is the same one that worked in Taunton: take the threat literally, ask for the number, and watch the face. If the number is real and fair, pay it happily - that's not losing, that's shopping. If the bluster was the product, you'll know within seconds, because bluster has no answer to "how much, exactly?"
Ask for the number. Bluster has no answer to "how much, exactly?"
The poker bankroll matters to this story more than it seems. I could make the gesture because the money was genuinely fine to lose - it had arrived at 3 a.m. from tourists who'd been drinking since dinner, and it could leave the same way. That's what a bankroll is for: it converts threats into prices across your whole professional life. A firm with a real marketing budget - measured, bounded, expected to lose some hands - negotiates from the same posture. A firm spending scared money flinches at every vendor's count of three. The difference shows in every deal they sign.
The judge, for what it's worth, never did say the number. The moment passed, the docket moved, and the courtroom went back to being a courtroom - except that a version of that story has been making the rounds ever since, and I've never once had to buy it an ad.
For criminal defense firms that want their marketing spend read the way a poker player reads a big bet - what it actually costs, what it actually returns, and which vendor threats are bluster with a deadline attached.
Start with the audit → Contact Russell Matson