Can an Illinois appellate clerk refuse filings from a represented litigant?

The Clerk of the Appellate Court, Second District stated in writing on August 14, 2026 that only counsel may make requests of the court or the clerk’s office on a represented litigant’s behalf. On the same day, the Chief Deputy Clerk of the First District wrote that rejecting the same litigant’s pro se filing "was done in error" and that he "currently ha[s] the right to file into [his] case pro-se." Both statements are in the administrative complaint filed with the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts on August 14, 2026.

The Clerk Put the Lockout in Writing at 2:23 in the Afternoon

What the Record Establishes

The reply is an official written communication of the Clerk of the Appellate Court, Second District, sent August 14, 2026 at 2:23 p.m., and it is reproduced verbatim on this page.
It states a categorical rule of office practice: a represented litigant may not personally make requests of the court or of the clerk’s office.
It answers none of the seven questions in the August 13 notice, including the identity of the reviewer who refused Envelope No. 39386845 and the authority relied on.
It does not confirm or deny that the litigation hold was implemented.

What They Have Not Produced

Whether any intake instruction, flag, direction, protocol, or communication concerning this filer’s submissions exists.
The identity and title of the person who reviewed and refused Envelope No. 39386845, and anyone consulted.
The specific authority relied upon for that refusal.
The standing intake rule applicable to a future conforming submission that requests leave to file.
Written confirmation that the records-retention hold has been implemented and transmitted to the responsible custodian.
Whether the notice and its exhibits were placed in the file of No. 2-26-0352 and put before the court.

The Clerk’s office was asked six factual questions and one records question. It answered with a rule. Here is the reply in full, less the signature block.

Dear Mr. Allababidi,

Unfortunately, since you’re represented by counsel, only your counsel is permitted to make requests of the court or my office on your behalf.
Jeffrey H. Kaplan, Clerk of the Court, Illinois Appellate Court, Second District — August 14, 2026, 2:23 p.m.

What was asked

The August 13 notice was not argumentative and did not ask the Clerk to rule on anything. It asked whether an intake instruction or flag exists on the account; who reviewed and refused Envelope No. 39386845 and who was consulted; what authority that refusal rested on; confirmation of the submission-and-rejection chronology and the office’s position on applying an August 7 order to an August 6 submission; the standing intake rule for a future conforming submission requesting leave to file; written confirmation that the records-retention hold had been implemented; and whether the notice would be placed in the file and put before the court.

Every one of those is a ministerial question about the operation of a public intake desk. None of them requires a judge.

The rule the reply announces, and the two records that sit against it

The reply states a categorical practice: a represented litigant may not personally make requests of the court or of the clerk’s office. Two documents in this same record sit directly against that proposition, and both are official writings of Illinois appellate clerks’ offices.

The first is the rejection notice itself, which instructs the filer — not counsel — that Rule 9 permits him to move to treat a corrected document as filed on its original date. The second is the August 14 correction issued by the Chief Deputy Clerk of the First District, on the same calendar day, in a companion appeal, telling the same litigant in writing that an identical rejection “was done in error” and that he “currently ha[s] the right to file into [his] case pro-se.”

Two districts of one appellate court, one filer, one week, two opposite written answers. That contrast is not rhetoric. It is the control experiment, and it is why the complaint went to the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts rather than to a judge.

Why this page names an office, not a motive

Nothing here alleges that the Clerk acted in bad faith, and nothing here alleges a crime. A clerk applying what he believes to be the rule is the ordinary case. What the record establishes is narrower and harder to answer: the rule as stated in writing produces a closed door for a litigant whose appointed counsel will not file the emergency motion, and whose liberty is under an active warrant. The remedy for that is administrative, and it has been requested from the office that supervises electronic filing statewide.