Since 1991, David Demers has built a litigation career defined by preparation, adaptability, and a competitive edge honed on the basketball court. Today, as Chair of Legal League and founder of Cooke Demers LLC, he brings that same mindset to creditors’ rights, bankruptcy litigation, and industry leadership.
In this conversation with MortgagePoint Editor-in-Chief David Wharton, Demers reflects on launching his own firm for work-life balance, navigating the ever-evolving regulatory landscape, and why he believes participation—not just membership—is the key to getting value from an industry organization.
Editor’s note: This is a condensed version of Demers’ conversation from the MP Access podcast. To view the full discussion, visit here.
What led you into litigation and ultimately to founding your own firm?
Demers: I’ve been practicing law since 1991. I’m very competitive—I played college basketball—and I always wanted to be in a field that had that element of competition. Litigation lends itself to that. There’s a winner and a loser. There’s the challenge of the argument and the debate, which I’ve always loved.
I started at a litigation firm in Columbus, then transitioned to a large Ohio firm with 250–300 lawyers. I got married and had kids later in life. When my son was 2, and my wife was pregnant with our daughter, I decided I should go out on my own to create a better work-life balance.
It was a big risk, but it’s been great. I live a mile from my office and was able to attend as many of my kids’ activities as work would permit. I’m very happy with the transition.
How did you find your way into creditors’ rights and bankruptcy litigation?
I started in general defense litigation, and it morphed into products liability, wrongful death, and serious injury work.
Then a friend of a friend needed someone to handle manufactured housing matters. It went from manufactured housing to the creditors’ rights to doing their litigation. I’ve litigated creditors’ rights in Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Nevada. So, it evolved over a period of time.
Litigation is consistent, but you have to learn the nuances of the industry, the alphabet soup: FDCPA, RESPA, TILA, FCRA. You have to learn what the clients are looking for. In general defense litigation, the strategy is to get your client out for the least amount of money. You have to ask your clients what they are looking for. Some of them will want to fight to the end. Others will just want to be extricated from the case as quickly as possible. A
win is what the client wants.
I’ve tried upwards of 100 jury trials. But I always tell clients, I don’t make the decisions. I give opinions based on research. The ultimate decision lies with the client.
How does practicing across multiple jurisdictions shape your approach?
You have to learn to adapt to what the judges are like in each jurisdiction. You bob and weave and do your research. Who’s the judge you’re in front of? What is the judge looking for? If it’s a creditors’ rights issue, is the judge more debtor-friendly, more creditor-friendly?
How has the judge ruled on similar cases in the past? It’s about doing your homework. Only then can you explain to your clients, “Here’s the risk-benefit analysis on this and how we think you should proceed.”
You became Chair of Legal League last summer. What were your priorities stepping into the role?
Steve Hladik did a wonderful job, so I had big shoes to fill. I didn’t come in wanting to make changes. I wanted to be open-minded, get an idea as to what’s going on in the industry, what’s going on with Legal League, listen to the members of the Legal League about their concerns, and then implement those if it’s possible.
My firm has been a member for 10 to 15 years. I’ve been involved with the Education Committee and the Strategic Initiatives Working Group (SIWG). As
in my practice of law, I do my research, I don’t try to be out front. The same thing with Legal League: I tried to get involved, listen, and not just jump into it without really understanding what the organization was. I wanted to get a better understanding of what the organization was, and what it could do for firms similar to my size that aren’t a national firm, as well as what their concerns are with respect to what’s going on in the industry.
What originally attracted you to Legal League?
I thought this was more of a grassroots organization, and that’s what really appealed to me about it. They were concerned about everybody: all firms, big, small, and medium.
I’ve been practicing law for over 30 years now, and my wife is always saying to me, “David, why don’t you retire? Why don’t you slow down?” I still like it. I enjoy the education part of it. I enjoy learning, I enjoy interacting with the clients and listening to what their concerns are, and the concerns of other members.
Are there benefits of the League that you think members may overlook or not take advantage of as much as they should?
Participation. You only get out of it what you put into it. There are opportunities through the education committee, events committee, SIWG—writing papers, speaking at conferences, and serving on panels.
Five Star Executive Director of Memberships Gina Gallutia does a wonderful job getting people to write articles, speak at conferences, and speak on panels. Those opportunities are there for everybody who is a member of the Legal League—not a select few, but everybody. That’s appealing to me.
What role do the SIWG and the Education Committee play?
SIWG writes white papers and articles on topics like statute of limitations, AI, and FEMA relief. They’re educational tools presented at events like the Spring Summit and the Five Star Conference.
The Education Committee provides training directly to clients. We have, for lack of a better term, a buffet of topics that we provide. We bring members in to sit in a classroom and educate the clients on topics such as advanced foreclosure and bankruptcy issues.
How can Legal League help firms and servicers navigate regulatory complexity?
It’s constantly evolving: the regulations, with what notices you have to give, when you have to give them. Each state is a little different, so it’s about educating the clients on what is required for their jurisdiction.
With a foreclosure, if you don’t start it right the first time, you can’t correct it. Unlike other litigation, where you can file an amended complaint, you have to get it right. And if you get it right, it makes everything else afterwards go easily.
Impressing upon the clients that this is the way you have to do it, and making sure they follow that, makes it easier. It’s not because we’re trying to make their life difficult; we’re trying to work in sync with them to make sure that they know what they need to do to keep themselves out of getting an alphabet soup lawsuit filed.
Where are you seeing the most litigation pressure today?
RESPA and TILA claims remain significant because they’re easy to slip up on. Did you provide the proper disclosure? Did you include the mini-Miranda warning? Did they close on a document, and they weren’t fully advised of what was going on? Those are the areas where you can get tripped up.
Sometimes litigation hinges on technicalities. I was sued personally years ago for not including a mini-Miranda warning in a letter requested by opposing counsel. It worked out in our favor, but those situations happen. Clients must decide whether to litigate or settle—even when they’re right—because cost matters.
Are there emerging issues servicers should monitor?
Zombie loans are old, dormant second mortgages that somebody buys and starts trying to collect on them. A handful of states are starting to create statutes for that, as to when you can do it, and servicers need to be mindful of that.
With the new bankruptcy rules going into effect on Dec. 1, and the implications of what those mean to the servicer and the new forms that have to
be used, they need to be on top of that. Because if not, they may be subjecting themselves to some complaints filed in bankruptcy court.
What legacy do you hope to leave as Chair?
Get involved. Your opinions matter. Whether everybody agrees with it is not important. It may be something that will spur another attorney to go, “I never thought about it from that perspective.” I want to encourage people to get involved and let us hear your opinions.
