I'm going to start by doing something unfair: I'm going to pick on a single sentence from all of the text Saeomon has shared.
And one final note: my DM really seems to think that making a character without a glaringly obvious weakness for the DM to exploit is "abusive." My DM does not seem to believe that it is 100% the responsibility of the DM to present a challenge to the PCs.
I call this out because I'm firmly of the belief that the players have at least as much responsibility for the campaign as the DM. It's NOT 100% the responsibility of the DM to do anything, really. But the DM does have the burden of facilitating the game, which generally means being responsible for showing EVERY player at the table where the fun is.
I've run into this with my own groups fairly recently, from both sides of the DM screen. It's not necessarily that your DM wants your character to have a glaringly obvious weakness; it's probably that he's having a hard time coming up with a scenario that is reasonably challenging to your PC, while not absolutely destroying less-optimal (or less-optimally-played) PCs. Probably he's also having trouble in constructing situations where OTHER characters have their "time to shine," because you've crafted your character to be able to do a bit of everything.
And yes, probably he's not a creative as you might like, if he's relying on locked doors for the rogue to open as being their "spotlight moment."
The solution begins with communication. You've apparently been to law school, so you should be able to put your thoughts and feelings into a coherent AND constructive argument; just remember that non-lawyers don't have the same formal training in argument, and may have a harder time distinguishing constructive criticism from personal attacks. Explain that you are detecting a significant difference in play-style between how he's running the current game, and how you constructed your character; offer just a couple of the less-confrontational examples. Note that your character has had a lot of the spotlight, as a result of how you structured him. Explain, further, that you feel you've hit a wall with character development because of these differences. Then offer to either retire the character, in favor of one better suited for the campaign as a whole, or to help him see what sort of mechanical challenges ARE a threat to your character, without automatically destroying the "Wastes of Space" in the party*.
And yes, DM'ing yourself for a while might be to everyone's benefit.
*By the way, even using that term is pejorative to your argument, at least to me. For most players of my acquaintance, D&D is just something fun to do with other people; I certainly don't expect everyone to find their fun in exactly the same way I do. If, as is common, I'm the most CO-savvy player in the group, the challenge then becomes HELPING the DM, through my own character design and role-play, to help the other characters shine.