<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><id>https://www.lawyerland.com/research/feed.xml</id><title>LawyerLand Research Releases</title><updated>2026-08-16T12:00:00-04:00</updated><link rel="self" href="https://www.lawyerland.com/research/feed.xml"/><link rel="alternate" href="https://www.lawyerland.com/research/"/><author><name>LawyerLand</name></author>
  <entry><id>https://www.lawyerland.com/research/ai-crawler-policy-state-statute-sources-2026-08/#v-2026.1</id><title>What Official U.S. State Statutory Sources Tell AI Crawlers — August 2026</title><updated>2026-08-16T12:00:00-04:00</updated><link href="https://www.lawyerland.com/research/ai-crawler-policy-state-statute-sources-2026-08/"/><summary>A first-party, reproducible measurement of what each U.S. jurisdiction&#39;s official statutory website publishes in its /robots.txt about fourteen named AI crawlers retrieving a citable statute section. Of 47 official sources, 44 publish no rule naming any AI crawler. Three do — Alaska, the District of Columbia and Idaho — and two of those three carry an identical eight-token list alongside a content delivery network&#39;s own crawler token, which is a platform default rather than a drafted policy. Fourteen of the 47 publish no robots.txt at all, four could not be read on this date and are recorded as unverified rather than permitted, and one, California, instructs every automated client to stay out entirely, Googlebot included; 42 of 47 permit Googlebot to reach the cited section. This measures published policy, not behaviour and not accessibility: robots.txt is a request an obedient client honours, and the absence of a rule is the absence of a decision rather than a decision to permit.</summary><category term="public_aggregate"/></entry>
  <entry><id>https://www.lawyerland.com/research/state-statute-source-availability-2026-08/#v-2026.1</id><title>Machine-Readability of Official U.S. State Statutory Sources — August 2026</title><updated>2026-08-15T12:00:00-04:00</updated><link href="https://www.lawyerland.com/research/state-statute-source-availability-2026-08/"/><summary>A first-party, reproducible measurement of whether an identified, non-JavaScript HTTP client can retrieve the text of one specific citable statutory section from each U.S. jurisdiction&#39;s own official online source on a single request. Of 47 jurisdictions with an official source URL, 25 returned the cited section and 22 did not, for reasons that are properties of the publishing systems rather than of the law: PDF-only publication, client-side rendering, connection failures, robots exclusion, server blocks, and link rot. This release publishes the per-jurisdiction outcomes, the HTTP evidence behind each one, the positive and negative controls, and the limits on what the figure means.</summary><category term="public_aggregate"/></entry>
  <entry><id>https://www.lawyerland.com/research/us-directory-inventory-july-2026/#v-2026.1</id><title>LawyerLand U.S. Directory Inventory Snapshot — July 2026</title><updated>2026-08-03T12:00:00-04:00</updated><link href="https://www.lawyerland.com/research/us-directory-inventory-july-2026/"/><summary>A reusable snapshot of LawyerLand&#39;s United States directory inventory, separating published listing rows from distinct law firms and populated city-by-practice pages so the quantities cannot be mistaken for one another.</summary><category term="public_aggregate"/></entry>
</feed>
