An Ohio judge jailed an public defender (and blocked her from appointments for further work) for contempt of court when the attorney refused to remove a "Black Lives Matter" pin. The logic seems to be (A) courts are supposed to be neutral, (B) neutrality means that officers of the court may not demonstrate non-neutrality, (C) attorneys are officers of the court, and therefore (D) attorneys may not express non-neutral viewpoints. The judge's specific reasoning, cited at 2:54 in the article video, is that "he could not let someone demonstrate a viewpoint in a court that is supposed to be fair and impartial." That's a very broad rule.
However, that seems to run against the idea that attorneys are supposed to be zealous advocates for their clients' positions in an adversarial system, the opposite of attorney neutrality.
Where does the logic chain in A-B-C-D above break down, or how far does it extend to restrict attorneys' expression of or advocacy for non-neutral positions?