Wearing casual clothes is not disruptive. However, the dress code for attorneys in court is well known, such that it is hard to believe that an attorney would ignore the dress code for any reason other than an unexpected emergency (got mud or his suit or something and has to dress up like a cowboy), pure stupidity, or intentional disregard for direction.
Yes, its kind of a petty issue, but to intentionally disregard rules is pretty much the dictionary definition of having contempt. You’d have a stronger case if you were simply arguing as a matter of principle that courts shouldn’t have dress codes, rather than it should be okay to disregard the rules of court.
Because the judge is in charge. The attorneys are not in charge, the defendants are not in charge, the bailiff is not in charge, the witnesses are not in charge. Therefore, if the judge decides on a dress code, that is what is going to happen.
If an attorney doesn’t like it, he or she can appeal, and make his argument that he should be able to appear in court with no socks, or wearing a fur bikini and a crash helmet, or a button that says “Fuck the System”, or whatever. But if the higher court doesn’t agree, and says that a dress code is appropriate, guess what? The judge is in charge.
A court appearance is a serious, formal occasion, not a barbecue, not a costume party, not a day at the beach. It is a time where real things happen, with real consequences. Clothing is a social signal. A judge is entitled to think, and to enforce, that the dress of the attorneys involved needs to signal that they are taking things seriously.
If you disagree with that, fine, it’s your right. Appeal to a higher authority, and good luck to you. If the appeals court says, in manhattan’s immortal phrase, “I am the g*ddam hall monitor”, then you put on the tie and pull up your socks and deal with it.