- in United States
- within Government, Public Sector, Criminal Law, Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
A few years back, I sent a longtime client a budget. At the bottom, under the real line items, I added one more: "Spanish Inquisition — $10,000." He wrote back a single line: "Approved — but are we expecting the Spanish Inquisition?"
It's one of the most satisfying email exchanges of my career. The joke only works if you know the Monty Python line it's built on — "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" — the whole premise being that it arrives as a total surprise. So the line item was already coded, for anyone who caught it, as shorthand for "the unexpected cost." My client didn't just get the joke; he volleyed it back in its own grammar. That's not just recognizing a reference — it's fluency.
It doesn't always go that way. I once told a client I felt like I was "reliving Groundhog Day" after opposing counsel circled back to a point we'd already closed, for the third time — no closer to resolution than the first pass. Nobody on the thread caught it. I got back a polite, confused "understood," and had to explain the joke in a follow-up email, which is its own small humiliation. Nothing kills a bit like footnoting it.
Every cultural reference we drop into a client email is a small bet: that the reader shares the frame, and that the shorthand will land faster and harder than a plain sentence could. When it works, it signals more than the substance — it signals rapport. When it doesn't, you rarely get told; you just get a slightly flat reply and no explanation.
The rule isn't to avoid the references. It's to use them the way you'd use salt — enhancing something that would still work without it, never the whole dish.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]