Know your vote. Take a look at your sample ballot now!

Scott Stephens

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
This page was current at the end of the official's last term in office covered by Ballotpedia. Please contact us with any updates.
Scott Stephens
Image of Scott Stephens
Prior offices
Florida 13th Circuit Court

Elections and appointments
Last election

August 18, 2020

Education

Bachelor's

University of Maryland, 1981

Graduate

Johns Hopkins University, 1996

Law

University of Baltimore, 1986

Contact

Scott Stephens was a judge of the Florida 13th Circuit Court. He left office on January 5, 2021.

Stephens ran for re-election for judge of the Florida 13th Circuit Court. He lost in the primary on August 18, 2020.

Stephens completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2020. Click here to read the survey answers.

Education

Stephens holds seven college degrees:

  • B.A., University of Maryland 1981
  • J.D., University of Baltimore 1984
  • LL.M., George Washington University 1986
  • M.S., Johns Hopkins University 1992
  • M.A., University of South Florida 1994
  • M.A., University of Maryland 1996
  • Ph.D., University of South Florida 1998[1]

Career

Stephens began his legal career as a private practice lawyer in Baltimore, Maryland. He moved his practice to Tampa, Florida in 1988 and worked in that capacity through 1995.

Stephens then worked as a graduate teaching assistant at the University of South Florida-Tampa from 1996 to 1998 and was a visiting assistant professor of finance at USF-Sarasota for two academic years from 1998 to 2000. He then became an assistant professor of finance at the University of Tampa and served in that capacity for two more academic years.

In February of 2002, Stephens became a deputy chief judge for the Florida Office of Judges of Compensation Claims. He worked in that capacity until he joined the circuit court in November of 2005. From July to November of 2003, he was also the interim director and chief administrative law judge for the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings.[1]

Elections

2020

See also: Municipal elections in Hillsborough County, Florida (2020)

Nonpartisan primary election

Nonpartisan primary for Florida 13th Circuit Court

Wendy Joy DePaul won election outright against incumbent Scott Stephens in the primary for Florida 13th Circuit Court on August 18, 2020.

Candidate
%
Votes
Wendy Joy DePaul (Nonpartisan)
 
52.1
 
109,996
Image of Scott Stephens
Scott Stephens (Nonpartisan) Candidate Connection
 
47.9
 
101,287

Total votes: 211,283
Candidate Connection = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

2014

See also: Florida judicial elections, 2014
Stephens ran for re-election to the Thirteenth Circuit Court.
As an unopposed candidate, he was automatically re-elected without appearing on the ballot.[2] 

Campaign themes

2020

Ballotpedia survey responses

See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection

Candidate Connection

Scott Stephens completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2020. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by Stephens' responses. Candidates are asked three required questions for this survey, but they may answer additional optional questions as well.

Expand all | Collapse all

Serving as a Circuit Judge since 2005, in family, criminal felony, general civil, and now in the Complex Business Litigation Division. Previously, Deputy Chief Judge of Compensation Claims and Business Professor, USF and University of Tampa. Lifelong learner and educator, and proud father.
  • Justice must depend on what you did, not on who you are.
  • Experience Matters and Integrity Counts.
  • This judge makes extensive contributions to the betterment of the judicial branch and should be able to keep doing that.
Procedural fairness is the most important priority of trial judges. Only rarely are we called upon to make decisions that have substantive policy implications, and when that does happen it is subject to review by the appellate courts.

There is a lot to do to ensure procedural fairness. Combatting the effects of implicit bias, scrupulously following the law and procedural rules, and adapting the structure of the system to mare efficiently and inexpensively serve the populace are particular examples. By watching more experienced judges, I have learned the value of letting people speak their piece even if it not strictly relevant from a legal standpoint, and of explaining the reasons behind rulings in detail, especially for unrepresented persons.

Most of my contribution to the betterment of the judicial branch has been in the technological area, helping to ease the transition from paper-based filing to electronic filing. My design work is reflected in the JAWS system, the statewide standards for similar systems, and the currently proposed amendments to the filing and service rules. Currently I am the cybersecurity chair of the Florida Courts Technology Commission.
A public servant need to be able to put the institutional interest first. Personal considerations do not have to be eliminated, but they do need to be subordinated.
After doing this for fifteen years, i would say that patience, decisiveness, and a sense of responsibility are the most important criteria for the position. A trial judge needs to remain neutral- one can form tentative opinions but has to be open to changing them as new information is learned- but when it is time to decide, the judge needs to decide.
My first real job was being part of a county survey crew that laid out line for roads to access DC Metro stations. It was three years of outdoor physical work. Now, I can go and see the roads that were built as a result of our labor, and remember that it takes a wide variety of people working together to make big projects happen.
The best recent book I have read is Kahneman, Thinking Fast and Slow
Trial judges should apply the law according to procedural rules without fear or favor. I don't have a broad substantive legal philosophy because that is not implicated at my level and because many of the substantive questions are political in nature.
Very much so. The cases affect real people, often in a profound way. Lives can be changed by legal results. On the other hand, empathy can never prevail at the expense of the rule of law. Judges have to make hard decisions, and have to make the legally correct decision even when it is harsh or unpopular.
It costs too much. The courts do an excellent job of providing equal access to the system, but the quality of the results can vary depending on the resources the litigant has. Not being able to afford a lawyer can compromise the fairness of the process, and unfortunately the judge is not in a position to counteract that inequality. At the end of the day, the decision has to be based on the law and the facts as they are presented.

Note: Ballotpedia reserves the right to edit Candidate Connection survey responses. Any edits made by Ballotpedia will be clearly marked with [brackets] for the public. If the candidate disagrees with an edit, he or she may request the full removal of the survey response from Ballotpedia.org. Ballotpedia does not edit or correct typographical errors unless the candidate's campaign requests it.

See also


External links

Footnotes