Criminal Records Relief Filing Desk

Staff workflow prototype

The form is the same in all 102 counties. That is what makes one revision expensive.

From an invented case management export, this desk places each charge in the expungement table or the sealing table of the approved Illinois form, with the outcome abbreviation the form itself prints, counts every waiting period in code from the date the record carries, names the fields the form requires that the export does not hold, splits the packet county by county, and reports which document templates stop resolving now that the form has been revised. The revision is real: EX-R 2903.8 became ATJ 2901.9 in June 2026, and both versions were read in full. It determines no eligibility, signs nothing and files nothing.

Measured here, end to end on one client file: run one and watch. That covers the documentary work between an export and a filing an attorney signs. It makes no eligibility determination, states no deadline, and says nothing about what a court will do.

1. The approved forms, observed

The eight adult expungement and sealing documents read page by page on 2026-09-16, every field with its status, plus the prior version of the Request form read from an archived capture. The two other families on the same page are counted and marked not read.

2. Simulation

Nine invented clients, twelve invented court cases, an invented case management export, an invented template library and the invented internal rules of an invented program. Every clause of that policy is labelled simulation policy, not this organization's policy.

3. Published rules, verbatim

ATJ 2900.10, the instructions approved by the Illinois Supreme Court and stamped 06/26, quoted word for word. The statute text was not reachable on the day this was built, so it is not reproduced, and the page says so.

What this shows

The problem
Preparing records relief filings is documentary work: read the export, put each charge in the right table of a statewide form with the right two-letter outcome code, count a waiting period from a date somebody typed, and notice what is missing. It is slow, it is repetitive, and the approved form changes underneath it.
The result
The run below is real and is recorded: the file read case by case, the periods counted in code, a packet assembled for one county with the rows as they would be typed, an attorney review sheet that quotes the condition the court publishes, and every decision this desk does not take, named.
Where it sits
Between a case management export and a filing an attorney signs. Standalone demonstration. It connects to nothing, writes into nothing, and is not a form.
What is simulated, and what is not covered
The program, the nine clients, the twelve cases, the export and the template library are invented, and the internal policy is one invented program's own, not anybody's law. The forms, the numbered sections, the outcome codes and both form versions are real and are marked row by row. Nothing is claimed about how any clerk takes a filing, what it costs, or what a court will do, and no eligibility determination, no legal advice, no deadline, nothing signed, nothing filed and nothing served. The tool layer refuses all of those, refuses a conviction placed in the expungement table, refuses a waiting period stated in prose rather than counted in code, and refuses a statutory subsection number this prototype has not read.
What a pilot would need from your side
A sample of real matters with the names removed, the field names the case management export actually uses, the templates you produce today, and one attorney who can say whether a row is right.
Who built it
Frederic de Lavenne de Choulot, The AI Pipe. Built as a demonstration, not sold as a legal, eligibility or compliance product.

Simulated client files

The library

Fictional desk. Do not paste real client, criminal history or case records.
Enter to send, shift and enter for a new line. Live tool use over nine invented client files, the approved Illinois forms and the published instructions.