Disbarred Attorney Tries to Get His License Back and Gets CAUGHT Lying Again!
Disbarred Attorney Tries to Get His License Back and Gets CAUGHT Lying Again!
The Unraveling of David Weise: How a Disbarred Attorney’s Reinstatement Bid Collapsed Under Scrutiny
Preview: Disbarred Michigan attorney David Weise sought to have his law license reinstated after multiple suspensions for professional misconduct. However, a virtual disciplinary hearing quickly unraveled as he faced tough questioning over a history of forgery, wiretapping, and providing false information on official documents, exposing a continued inability to meet the high ethical standards required of officers of the court.
A Cascade of Disciplinary Actions
The path to David Weise’s disciplinary reckoning was years in the making, marked by a steady accumulation of professional misconduct findings. Beginning in July 2021, the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board issued a series of suspensions that effectively kept his license locked away.
The initial 180-day suspension stemmed from misconduct tied to his own bitter divorce and custody proceedings. This was followed by a 30-day suspension resulting from a disorderly person misdemeanor conviction. Matters worsened significantly when a third suspension—this time for 18 months—was levied against him after findings revealed he had unlawfully held himself out as a practicing attorney while suspended and submitted false information on prior reinstatement petitions.
The Reinstatement Hearing and Past Misconduct
When Weise’s 18-month suspension finally concluded, he filed a formal petition for reinstatement. On March 16, 2026, he appeared before an Attorney Discipline Board panel via a virtual Zoom hearing, represented by attorney Timothy Dinan, while Sarah Lindseay represented the Attorney Grievance Commission.
Under Michigan court rules, an attorney seeking reinstatement after a lengthy suspension does not automatically get their license back; they must affirmatively prove by clear and convincing evidence that they are rehabilitated, maintain a proper attitude toward professional standards, and can be safely recommended to the public.
During cross-examination, Ms. Lindseay methodically walked through the extensive catalog of Weise’s past infractions. The record revealed a staggering pattern of deception:
The Forged Marriage Certificate: Rather than admitting that a paperwork error had left him technically married when he entered into a subsequent relationship, Weise orchestrated a plan to have his second wife, a church pastor, and two parishioners sign a backdated marriage certificate under the guise of “cleaning up paperwork,” later admitting no actual wedding ceremony took place.
The Stolen Notebook: During a deposition break in his custody battle, Weise slipped back into a room and stole a confidential notebook from his ex-wife’s briefcase containing privileged legal strategy, an act characterized in disciplinary proceedings as larceny.
Surveillance and False Testimony: Weise admitted to sewing a recording device into his minor son’s backpack to eavesdrop on therapy sessions. Furthermore, he acknowledged giving false testimony under oath during personal protection order proceedings and submitting a false resume and personal history affidavit to the grievance commission.
The Question of True Transformation
Throughout the hearing, panel members pressed Weise on what steps he had taken to change his behavior and how he viewed his relationship with the truth. When asked what he had done to prevent future poor decision-making—particularly if he faced another stressful custody dispute—Weise pointed to his current lifestyle, noting that he drives his five-year-old child to school, coaches youth sports, and has tried to distance himself from past stressors. However, he admitted he had not completed any continuing legal education specifically focused on legal ethics.
In her closing argument, Ms. Lindseay emphasized that the core issue in Weise’s case was a deeply ingrained pattern of dishonesty and self-help. She noted that granting a license requires a searching inquiry into the causes of misconduct and a convincing showing of genuine transformation—a standard Weise failed to meet. He repeatedly opted for shortcuts and falsehoods rather than confronting truths head-on.
The Weighing of Public Trust
The panel concluded the hearing by instructing both parties to submit brief proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within 21 days. As the board deliberates, Weise’s license remains suspended.
The case serves as a stark reminder that the privilege of practicing law extends far beyond courtroom advocacy. It is a position of public trust where honesty, integrity, and adherence to the rule of law are paramount. For attorneys who breach that trust through repeated deception, proving true rehabilitation requires far more than merely waiting out a suspension—it demands absolute accountability and an unyielding commitment to the truth.
