ORCA doesn't just draft your statement of claim — it checks it: which facts anchor each cause, which exhibits are missing, and where opposing counsel will find the gap. Built by a litigator.
Built for solo litigators and mid-market firms running real civil cases. Not legal-tech demos, not enterprise pilots.
₪100 per case (early-access) • no subscription • no commitment
ORCA is an AI legal reasoning system built by a litigator. At its core is a structured knowledge layer covering core practice areas of Israeli civil law - causes of action, legal elements, statutory anchors, relief rules, defense patterns. It applies that knowledge to your case facts: identifies the right causes, checks that every element is supported, calculates relief, maps evidence, and flags what's missing.
Today ORCA produces three things in a single run: a complete Statement of Claim with a detailed evidence map, and an internal strategy memo that shows where the case is strong, where it's vulnerable, and what the settlement range looks like. Statement of Defense - in development. What comes next - pretrial motions, discovery planning, cross-examination prep - builds on the same foundation: structured legal knowledge applied to case facts, checked before it reaches your desk.
A 5-minute call with a terminated employee became a review-ready statement of claim.
Hi... I honestly don't know where to begin. I worked six years at an advertising company - senior graphic designer, ₪18,500 a month. January 2025 I got my annual review, they wrote 'exceeds expectations.' February I told my manager I was pregnant - week ten. Eight days later I got a termination letter. Reason: 'restructuring.'
עילת התביעה: הפליה בעבודה מחמת הריון (חוק שוויון ההזדמנויות בעבודה, התשמ״ח-1988)
יחסי עובד–מעביד בין הצדדים מבוססים ומוכחים. התובעת הועסקה אצל הנתבעת החל מיום 1.8.2018 כמעצבת גרפית בכירה במחלקת הקריאייטיב, בשכר חודשי של 18,500 ₪ ברוטו, בהתאם להסכם העסקה בכתב (נספח א'). תלושי השכר מוכיחים קיום יחסי עבודה מלאים ומובהקים, ללא כל ספק בדבר מעמדה של התובעת כעובדת הנתבעת.
ביום 12.2.2025 הודיעה התובעת למנהלה הישיר כי היא בשבוע העשירי להריונה, והציגה בפניו אישור רפואי מיום 10.2.2025 (נספח ב'). שמונה ימים בלבד לאחר גילוי ההריון, ביום 20.2.2025, זומנה התובעת לפגישה ונמסר לה מכתב פיטורים חתום על-ידי מנכ״ל החברה, הקובע את סיום העסקתה ביום 31.3.2025 (נספח ג').
הקשר הסיבתי בין ההריון לפיטורים אינו מותיר מקום לספק. הנתבעת הציגה עילה כוזבת של ארגון מחדש: לא פוטר אף מעצב נוסף מהמחלקה, משרתה של התובעת לא בוטלה בפועל. כשבועיים לאחר הפיטורים פרסמה הנתבעת מודעת דרושים לאותו תפקיד בדיוק — מעצבת גרפית בכירה (נספח ד'). מכלול הנסיבות מצביע בבירור: הנתבעת לא ביטלה משרה אלא ביקשה להחליף עובדת בהריון.
משהוכיחה התובעת כי לא הייתה בהתנהגותה או בכישוריה עילה לפיטורים — כפי שעולה מהערכת ינואר 2025 שדירגה אותה כ"עולה על הציפיות" (נספח ה') — עובר הנטל לנתבעת להוכיח שלא הפלתה. נטל זה אין ביכולתה לשאת.
סך הסעדים הנתבעים: 336,175 ₪ | פיצויי פיטורים: 123,395 ₪ | פיצוי בגין הפליה: 130,000 ₪
Illustrative scenario from employment law — one of the system's active domains. Identifying details changed.
See a full ORCA output sample →What goes in - facts. What comes out - law.
בבית הדין האזורי לעבודה חיפה
כתב תביעה
יעל דהן נגד קריאטיב אדג׳ בע"מ
Just eight days after disclosing her pregnancy, the plaintiff was summoned and handed a termination letter. The causal link between the pregnancy and the dismissal leaves no room for doubt.
Three smoking-gun exhibits confirmed. Primary risk: proving employer’s prior knowledge of the pregnancy. Waiver document - check immediately.
A document ready for attorney review, including a caption, detailed facts, causes of action with full elements analysis, calculated relief, exhibit list, and evidence map. Not a fill-in template - a document written for your specific case, based on the facts you entered.
Part of the statement of claim, but worth mentioning on its own. For each exhibit, the map details: which facts it proves, which cause elements it serves, and its strategic significance. Not a document list - a lawyer's view of the evidence.
An internal document that is not filed in court. It details which causes were selected and why, which were rejected, what the anticipated defenses are, the realistic settlement range, and the case's vulnerabilities. The document an experienced attorney builds mentally before starting to write.
ORCA isn't here to replace the lawyer. It's here to replace the hours they waste on work they already know how to do.
An experienced attorney who receives a new case sees the causes of action, the odds, and the available relief almost immediately. But between that judgment and a filed statement of claim lies the drafting cycle: drafting facts, organizing exhibits, calculating relief, editing, proofreading, more proofreading. ORCA handles that part.
Every litigator's real fear isn't the writing hours - it's filing with a hole you didn't see. ORCA doesn't just draft - it checks: which facts anchor each cause, which exhibits are missing, and where the gaps are that opposing counsel will exploit. Automated quality gates. A document that doesn't meet the threshold - blocked. ORCA doesn't fabricate facts, doesn't cite non-existent case law, and doesn't produce generic boilerplate.
What lands on the lawyer's desk is a professional draft that requires review and judgment - not a rewrite from scratch. The legal judgment remains yours. The technical working hours - no longer.
Every output passes dozens of checks before it reaches you - not a count, but targeted checks of the kind a language model alone would never catch:
We asked a general language model and ORCA to write a cause-of-action paragraph from the same facts. Here's what came back.
"The defendant breached the duty of good faith toward the plaintiff. Under CA 4782/19 Levy v. Cohen (2020) it was held that breach of good faith entitles the claimant to at least ₪50,000. This conduct caused the plaintiff financial and other damages. The court is therefore asked to award full performance damages of ₪247,000 and also to rescind the agreement..."
"Breach of Contract - Section 10, Contracts (Remedies) Law, 5731-1970.
Element 1 - Valid contract: Agreement dated 15.3.2024 (Exhibit 1). Element 2 - Breach: Defendant failed to pay ₪247,000 by 30.4.2024 (§5.2; Exhibit 2 - unanswered payment demand). Element 3 - Damage: Direct loss of consideration. In the alternative: rescission and restitution (§9 of the Remedies Law)."
A general language model is a smart pen, not a lawyer. The gap looks small - until opposing counsel points out you claimed both rescission and full performance in the same breath, or the judge asks where you found that case.
When you enter the facts, ORCA already knows which causes and elements are required under Israeli law - before a single word is written. A general language model tries to reason toward the same conclusions while it writes - and gets them wrong. That gap is the difference between text that sounds legal and a draft you can review and file.
See the structural comparison: real case, two approaches →Free text. ORCA asks what's missing.
Causes. Elements. Relief. Evidence - mapped end to end.
Ten sections in legal Hebrew, ready for your review.
Transparency matters to us. ORCA isn't for everything:
ORCA writes high-quality drafts. You decide, edit, and sign.
No. ORCA writes drafts. It doesn't know how to look a client in the eye, negotiate a settlement, or sit through a hearing.
Encrypted. Case data stored in Israel. AI processing via OpenAI/Anthropic under their standard API terms — not used for training. Auto-deleted in 30 days.
Every cause ORCA selects is built on a fixed, validated list of legal elements under Israeli law - with a specific statutory anchor for each element. Before selecting any cause, the system checks that the facts you provided are sufficient to establish each element. If an element can't be established - ORCA flags the gap instead of filling it with plausible-sounding text. The legal knowledge base for each domain was authored by a licensed Israeli litigator with civil litigation experience.
There will be mistakes. That's why it's a draft and why you're a lawyer. You review, correct, and sign. Like any associate - except this one never forgets a clause.
Fair question. A general language model with a good prompt produces plausible legal text. That gap between "text that sounds legal" and "a document you can file" is exactly what ORCA is built to close: systematic checks that verify what was written can also be filed. See the full analysis →
Yes. ORCA produces a draft. Professional responsibility for reviewing, editing, and signing rests with the attorney, per Israel Bar Association rules. ORCA does not provide legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
A general AI assistant doesn't know what it doesn't know. ORCA validates its legal knowledge before drafting - checking that each cause it selects includes the correct elements, the correct statutory anchors, and no contradictions with other causes. If the knowledge isn't there - ORCA flags the gap instead of filling it with text that sounds plausible.
The attorney. ORCA generates a draft - a work tool, not a final document. The attorney reviews, edits, and signs. Professional responsibility is theirs, exactly as with any other work tool. ORCA does not provide legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Our Terms of Service detail the allocation of responsibility.
We don't promise "filing-ready." Even a document that passed all checks requires attorney review. ORCA produces the draft - not the final judgment.
No case law cited in the document body. No invented facts. No hidden failures - every failed check is reported explicitly.
A legal-knowledge layer spanning dozens of civil-law areas. Production depth runs deepest today on a handful - strongest in defamation and contracts. See all domains ←
Not a demo. Not a simulation. Your case, your facts, a real draft.
Your first draft will tell you more than any marketing page — one case, ₪100, one hour of review.
Try now - ₪100 (early-access)All data entered is stored on a secured server, deleted within 30 days, and never used for any purpose other than processing your case.
Built by Adv. Moran Bickel, a litigator — because only someone who has drafted thousands of pleadings knows what can truly be automated, and what must never be touched.