In the latest issue of ISBA's Trial Briefs, Cook County Judge Dan Gillespie highlights a recent appellate court holding that a litigant need not disclose that he or she intends to cross-examine the other party’s expert witness with a journal article. As Judge Gillespie notes, that's a pretty big departure from the long-held assumption that "if a party can reasonably foresee that he or she will be using or relying on a particular treatise to cross-examine an expert on the other side, that party should notify the other party in advance." Then again, the majority was relying on a 2002 amendment to Rule 213(g) that does seem clear enough on its face: "Without making disclosure under this rule, however, a cross-examining party can elicit information, including opinions, from the witness." ISBA trivia: The case, Stapleton v. Moore, inspired a lengthy dissent by Justice (and former ISBA President) Terry Lavin. Lavin's article on the evolution -- or as he terms it, the devolution -- of the Miranda doctrine will appear in a forthcoming issue of the Illinois Bar Journal.