David Drwencke

Attorney David R. Drwencke brings an aggressive, nuanced approach to every file that he works on and will do his best to find creative solutions to resolve clients’ legal matters. When you work with Attorney Drwencke, you will be working with an experienced professional who prioritizes his client-attorney relationship. He seeks to be an approachable and communicative advocate for his clients going through a tough time. As a “Rising Star” according to Super Lawyers Magazine in both 2019 and 2020, Attorney Drwencke has the skill and experience to defend you. He is licensed with the Chicago Bar Association, Illinois State Bar Association, Michigan State Bar Association, District of Columbia Bar Association, and American Bar Association. He can practice before the Illinois Supreme Court, District of Columbia, Michigan Supreme Court, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

• Free Consultation
• Credit Cards Accepted

District of Columbia

District of Columbia Bar

ID Number: 241178

Since 2018

Illinois

Supreme Court of Illinois

ID Number: 6323272

Since 2017

Michigan

State Bar of Michigan

ID Number: P80409

Since 2016

Owner

DRD Law, LLC

2020 - Current

Senior Associate

Johnson & Bell, Ltd.

2020 - 2020

Associate

Patton & Ryan, LLC

2018 - 2020

Associate

O'Connor, DeGrazia, Tamm & O'Connor

2016 - 2016

Associate

Beam Legal Team

2016 - 2016

Associate

McKeen & Associates, PC

2015 - 2016

Law Clerk

Oakland County Circuit Court

2008 - 2015

University of Detroit Mercy School of Law

J.D.

2015

University of Detroit Mercy

M.A.

2012

Albion College

B.A.

2007

Rising Stars

Super Lawyers

2025

Rising Stars

Super Lawyers

2024

Rising Stars

Super Lawyers

2023

Rising Stars

Super Lawyers

2022

Rising Star

SuperLawyers

2021

State Bar of Michigan  # P80409

2016 - Current

State Bar of Michigan

Member

2016 - Current

Michigan Association for Justice

Member

2016 - Current

American Inns of Court

Pupil

2014 - Current

American Bar Association

Member

2012 - Current

Facing Criminal Charges In Illinois? Answers To Your Questions And The Way Forward

Jacobs & Whitehall

September 10, 2025

Q. Can I be convicted of burglary if I didn't steal anything?

August 13, 2025

A: Under Illinois criminal law, a defendant can be convicted of burglary even if they did not steal anything. The crime of burglary is complete upon an unauthorized entry with the intent to commit a theft or felony, regardless of whether the theft or felony is carried out.

Burglary Defined by Intent, Not Completion of Theft

Illinois law establishes that burglary is accomplished at the moment a defendant makes an unauthorized entry with the intent to commit a theft or felony. It is not necessary for the theft or felony to be completed for the crime of burglary to occur (People v. Bridgewater, 388 Ill.App.3d 787 (2009). The statute governing burglary, 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 5/19-1(a), supports this principle, emphasizing that the offense is complete upon entry with the requisite intent (People v. Murphy, 2017 IL App (1st) 142092 (2017).

Proof of Intent Without Actual Theft

Courts have consistently held that it is not essential to allege or prove that anything was stolen or that the defendant possessed proceeds of a burglary. The offense is complete upon entering with the intent to steal (People v. Rhodes, 81 Ill.App.3d 339 (1980). Furthermore, a jury may infer the intent to commit theft from the illegal entry of premises containing movable property that could be the subject of theft, even if nothing is actually taken (People v. Richardson, 118 Ill.App.3d 175 (1983).

Exceptions Based on Lack of Intent

However, a defendant cannot be convicted of burglary if there is no evidence of intent to commit theft or a felony at the time of entry. For example, in People v. O'Banion, 253 Ill.App.3d 427 (1993), the court overturned a burglary conviction because there was no evidence that the defendant intended to commit theft upon entering the premises. Similarly, in Price v. People, 109 Ill. 109 (1884), the court held that a person cannot be convicted of burglary if they lacked felonious intent and were merely present as a bystander or informant.

Under Illinois law, the critical element for a burglary conviction is the intent to commit theft or a felony at the time of unauthorized entry, not the actual commission of theft or a felony. ... Read More

Q. Illinois criminal cases: self-defense/necessity defense by felon

August 13, 2025

A: Recent criminal cases in Illinois have not demonstrated successful use of self-defense or necessity defenses by convicted felons on parole found with firearms, leading to charges of unlawful use of a weapon by a repeat offender and resulting in a not guilty verdict. The cases reviewed consistently show courts rejecting these defenses under circumstances involving firearm possession by felons, emphasizing the lack of specific and immediate threats required to justify such defenses and the public safety concerns associated with felons possessing firearms.

Applicability of Necessity Defense in Firearm Possession Cases

Illinois courts have consistently rejected the necessity defense in cases involving felons found in possession of firearms. For example, in People v. Taylor, 2023 IL App (4th) 220381 (2023), the defendant argued that his possession of a revolver was necessary due to fear of retaliation from unnamed associates of a shooting victim. The court found that the defendant failed to identify specific individuals posing an immediate threat and that his actions, including carrying the weapon through multiple vehicles and disposing of it near an elementary school, were not his sole option to avoid harm. The court concluded that the necessity defense was unwarranted because the defendant's conduct arguably created a greater public safety threat People v. Macias, --- N.E.3d ---- (2025). In People v. Johnson the defendant claimed that civil unrest in Chicago justified his possession of a firearm. The court rejected this argument, stating that the unrest was too general and remote to constitute a specific and immediate threat. The court emphasized that the necessity defense requires evidence of an impending injury to a particular person or entity, which was absent in this case (People v. Johnson, 2024 IL App (1st) 240154 (2024).

The key to your situation, based on recent case law, would be to have a particular threat, evidence of an impending, iminent injury, to have a chance to make sure a legal claim. ... Read More

Q. How can I resolve felony warrants remotely from another state?

August 13, 2025

A: Unfortunately, based on my experience - specifically in Cook County, IL but little reason to think other counties would be different. Courts have required that defendants appear in person to answer for warrants. Typically, when a defendant takes the initiative to turn themselves in or appear with an attorney, judges have looked favorably upon that and have quashed and recalled warrants, placing the defendant on reasonable conditions of release.

Naturally, we would need to learn more about your specific situation and the underlying case for which you have a warrant, as there's always a possibility that the judge could detain the defendant if the case is serious enough or if the judge believes that the individual will continue to be a flight risk. ... Read More