Don’t imply I thought you meant that. 
That was my own phrasing, because that definition of “nice” to me is still quite casual. You’re talking to someone who will wear 3" heels, tights (in winter), a pencil skirt and fitted blouse or sweater, with jewelry and nicely done hair to her IT job with a business casual derss code. 
When I was a teacher I wore a blazer to work everyday and didn’t do casual days for the first few months. Why? Because it has an effect on the students. Mostly is that I look about 17-18 even though I’m 25 and the blazer fixes that, but it also has an effect on the students and parents. It serves to remind them that I am a professional and I seem to get more respect when I’m dressed more formally (especially from parents).
I also notice that the students seem much better and more focused when they are not in their street clothes. Now I now the plural of anecdote is not data but I’ve always seen a significant reduction in performance when the students dress down.
It’s a form of conspicuous consumption and branding. The lawyer or investment banker wearing the $1000 suit is basically sending a message “I am so successful I can afford a suit this nice.”
For a will, who cares? You can buy software that will draft you up a boilerplate will. If you need a law firm to defend you against multimillion dollar litigation, are you going to hire the firm with the slovenly lawyers sitting in folding chairs?
I actually turned down a job for the simple reason that their offices were crap. Reception consisted of the receptionists desk and chair, a standing electric fan and no other tables or chairs. How can you be effective as a client service business if you don’t have an office that offers clients the slightest bit of comfort?
Now I agree that a monkey in a suit is still a monkey. People in one of my last jobs used to make up for their lack of experience by overdressing in suits and just being pompous and arrogant. Wearing suits will not turn an nth tier IT consulting firm into the Boston Consulting Group.
Maybe it’s got nothing to do with quality of work, but it does make proving your professionalism just that much easier. For me in my 12 years in IT, showing up in jeans and a t-shirt is fine for internal meetings. But in my role as consultant and later managing consultant, you bet your bippy I would dress up to see other companies, especially those not in IT.
It shows professionalism and respect, and whilst it has little to do with my technical capabilities or those of my organization, it does show I take both the customer and the meeting seriously. And even if I’m the only one wearing a suit, for the first meeting at the very least I will be in one regardless.
Developers, IT staff, etc… (those who don’t often see customers or partners) can get away with the sweaty AC/DC t-shirt and the like; Consultants and sales types simply won’t be taken seriously and it’s never that hard to walk across the street to the competition.
Totally agree here.
The answer alas is quite simple: more people feel that a suit implies professionalism (or rather than a lack of a suit implies the reverse) than are offended by the presence of a suit, so a professional meeting a client or another professional for the first time, not knowing their preferences, logically would rather wear a suit than not.
Once you have established a relationship, things tend to get more casual.
I’m a lawyer who mostly does regulatory opinions - I never wear a suit except to meet clients.
I remain surprised that so many folks are sticking with the false dichotomy that the only alternative to a suitcoat and tie is “slovenly dress,” jeans and a T-shirt, and such.
How many times must I say that appearance DOES matter? But heck, it goes beyond attire. I’d rather go with the professional who is dressed casually but appears alert and in shape, as opposed to a lethargic out-of-shape person wearing the best business attire. And - to me and apparently not many others - I’m aware that first impressions are just that. Hell, you want someone who knows how do shake a hand instead of offer a limp fish.
Then you get the other form of silliness, where a raggedy, decades-old, thrift store cast-off leisure suit is deemed preferable to the most expensive and stylish business casual because the former is - technically - a suit. When our office used to be formal there used to be folks who wore “suits” and ties that were ill-fitting, in poor repair, and decades out-of-date - but they were considered within the dress policy. Whereas a man could wear the best-tailored, stylish, expensive clothes, and he would be instructed to change. And this was for a job in a law office with only rare face-to-face client contact.
No, I don’t want my doctor or lawyer operating out of a double-wide or driving a rustbucket. But if I’m paying the bills, I’m perfectly fine with them driving a nice late model sedan, instead of a Rols or Lamborghini.
The repeated references to “chicks digging suits” also strikes me as a little silly. The idea that some woman somewhere might take a second glance at my form is absolutely no compensation for the discomfort and expense of wearing and maintaining a wardrobe of business attire - in either the summer or the winter slop. Of course, I guess I might be in the minority in that respect as well.
Totally agree with all your points. I am working (still at 3pm - I love my job!) in my PJs and haven’t showered or shaved or anything.
And Dinsdale is right too - but the UK, and especially London, is quite a bit more formal than the US so I might be a tad out of touch, but business attire here pretty much means a suit.
Also, the suit is an easy option at times. You don’t have to weight whether something is dressy enough, or whether these pants look good on you. Its a suit. IMHO, most men look better in a suit than in khakis and a shirt.
I don’t know what kind of law you practice, but if I were on a jury I would perceive a suit as saying you care about your client and the process. You consider it important and you respect what’s going on. It’s symbolic, and a starting place. From there, you may end up doing a crappy or a good job, but at least you showed basic respect.
Here in Canada, forget the suit - lawyers actually in court have to wear robes. 
Thing is, even if you are a litigator, upwards of 90% of what a lawyer does isn’t done in court.
And those fun white wigs?
I figured I was running the risk of the OP being someone who never has to go to court!
Only in my dreams, alas.
Right, so if appearance matters, then the logical conclusion is that people wear suits because they want to present the most professional appearance possible.
Do bathrobes count?
I’m a lawyer, and I remember visiting a client’s office one time in a suit, only to discover that the office culture there was wholly casual dress. I made an apologetic remark about showing up looking out of place, and he said, “Don’t worry; when we have lawyers visiting, we like them easy to spot.”
It would be fun to try … but no. Only court robes.
I didn’t mean to imply that, I just thought I should make my feelings clear and that seemed like as good an opportunity as any. I agree that “nice” doesn’t always have to mean “formal”. Your outfit sounds well put together. I’m sure you look great and put most of your coworkers to shame.
I don’t mind putting on the odd suit now and then, but it can be pretty hard to wear one outdoors in a warm season, or inside an overheated building. It’s too bad that the default dress-up attire for men doesn’t lend itself to layering. If it’s really cold you can don a trench coat over your suit, but if it’s warm there’s not much you can do that won’t spoil the effect of the suit. When you take off the jacket you’re no longer wearing a suit, you’re just wearing a pair of slacks with a shirt and tie. Not nearly as good looking.
Agreed. And I think this was Dinsdale’s original point, if not his main one (correct me if I’m wrong). Having someone dressed up on certain formal occasions requires a suit. This includes going to court, speaking at a formal gathering, whatever. I think what bothers him, and bothers me as well, is that during slightly less formal occasions, say an accountant meeting a client for the first time, that maybe a button down or polo shirt is sufficient to convey “I recognize the conventions of society and therefore am not an idiot and am consequently competent at doing your taxes.” He seems to be questioning, as do I, the logic of wearing a suit, which is inescapably hot in the summer, for an occasion such as this. This seems to convey to Dinsdale, “I sort of recognize the conventions of society, and am rigidly adhering to them, even if it means sweating my ass off and possibly performing slightly less well on the task at hand because I am uncomfortable.”
Now Dinsdale also seems to express a desire that the conventions of what constitutes acceptable attire in formal occasions change as well. That seems interesting, and I am curious to what people have to say about it. It just seemed to me that people were arguing against points that he wasn’t making, or at least that he was making in tangent to his original.
Maybe I’m way off, but that’s how I read this thread.