There’s some truth to that.
Due to jurisdictional overlap, I practice the same law in two different courts: one where I gown/robe, and the other where I can wear jacket and pants. Quite simply, the riff-raff are less disruptive in the fancy dress court.
Oooh! Oooh! the tampon! tell’em about the tampon, Mr Muffin!
That’s the riff-raff court, in case it wasn’t clear. 
I read an interview with a Florida judge who was on a tour in Canada. She was so impressed by the decorum in Canadian courts (not the riff-raff level) that she bought gowns out of her own pocket and required all lawyers appearing in front of her to wear them. She said it was remarkable how it created a greater level of calmness and respect amongst counsel.
There are also clear terms to use when referring to other counsel.
You don’t say something like “my opponent.” Counsel appearing opposite you is “my friend.” If they’ve got a QC, they’re “my learned friend.”
Counsel appearing on the same side as you are “my colleague” or “my learned colleague” if they’ve been QC-ified.
One of the nice things about practising in a small bar is going head to head in court against the same lawyers. Over the years, “my friend” is no longer just a polite phase. It takes on real meaning.
"And do as adversaries at law:
“Strive mightily, and eat and drink as friends.”
(Taming of the Shrew)
I quote that to my students!
In my jurisdiction, there are all sorts of behind the scenes rules to promote the idea of “learned friends” who oppose each other without personal hostility.
No barrister couches her submissions on fact or law in terms that might be thought to represent a personal opinion. Thus, we say, “You might well conclude that X, Y and Z happened, and you might draw those conclusions for reasons A, B and C”. NOT “I think what happened is X, Y and Z, and I think that for reasons A, B and C”.
It depersonalises the argument, and as a matter of advocacy, sounds less shrill and desperate somehow.
And at lunch in the Bar common room, the rule is that no one sits at an empty table until all chairs at other tables are full. This is to promote meeting people and being convivial.
Barristers do try to rise above the rancour of their clients’ battles. It is quite possible to do this and still be a steely and effective advocate.
It is strongly discouraged among lawyers here to say “I think Y” or “I believe my client when he says X,” but it’s not required. I like the common-room table rule a lot! Wish we did that.
Don’t you have Bar rooms in America?
In Ontario, Canada, it varries. Bar associations tend to have robing rooms, bar libraries, and common rooms w/without kitchens in Superior Court courthouses. Osgoode Hall (housing the Law Society of Ontario/Upper Canada and the Court of Appeal for Ontario) used to have a lawyer’s dining room with a chef and staff, but that has now been leased out as a concession that is open for public use. At the other end of the extreme was the community hall in Fort Hope that, before it was burned to the ground by someone, was used by the Ontario Court of Justice circuit court about once a month, and which did not have a washroom. One of my career WTF moments was being in Thunder Bay in court when a person was convicted for pissing on the back-alley wall of a TBay dive bar after closing time, when the previous day I and other court officers had been pissing against the exterior wall in Fort Hope.
Our shiny new courthouse in Thunder Bay has two full dining rooms in judge terriorty (but not chefs), so that judges can lunch together each day. Lawyers tend to head back to their offices, or step across the street to a restaurant.
It is required in Canada, at least for Crowns. The Supreme Court has held that a Crown who vouches personally for the value of the testimony of a witness has over-stepped the line between advocate and partisan, and the inevitable appeal will be allowed.
(Unfortunately, the relevant passage from the Crown’s submissions to the jury is in French, so I’ve not quoted it, but what he said was that as Crown prosecutor it was his duty to review the police evidence and he could personally assure the jury that they could rely on it because of their professional neutrality. It was the fact that the Crown was personally vouching for the testimony that fatally tainted his case.)
Justice Rand’s decision is also the leading case on the duty of a Crown prosecutor:
None in my province. We have too small a bar and especially too small a barrister’s bar to warrant the cost.
My courthouse has a lawyers’ lounge, just with a table, some chairs and a bathroom I think, but it’s not used all that much. Most American courthouses IME lack them entirely.