It drafts your statement of claim. And checks it like a litigator.
Which facts anchor each cause, which exhibits are missing, and where the gap is.
And when the case isn't ready, ORCA says so and won't certify it for filing.
Built for solo litigators and mid-market firms running real civil cases. Not legal-tech demos, not enterprise pilots.
Early access, free • no subscription • no commitment
A working tool for lawyers · What ORCA does
The case file goes in. A reasoned Statement of Claim comes out.
ORCA reads the case file, elects the causes of action and explains what was rejected, computes the relief - and drafts a complete Statement of Claim. Every allegation is grounded in a fact or exhibit from your file. What isn't grounded doesn't go in.
1 · What you provide
The factual summary and exhibits from the client file - as they are.
2 · What ORCA decides
Cause election
Privacy violation - rejected: the publication is false, but discloses no private matter
Evidentiary grounding
Every allegation is tied to a fact or exhibit from the file · 5/5 facts grounded
Relief computation
Intent to injure - pleaded from the posts' content and from publishing despite the warning - raises the ceiling to ₪100,000 per publication.
Two separate publications = two ceilings: 2 × ₪100,000 + ₪12,000 = ₪212,000, plus a fallback ladder.
Quality control
Dozens of blocking checks - a single failure stops the document
3 · The document you receive
בבית משפט השלום בתל אביב-יפו
ת"א ____-__-26
התובעת: ד"ר מיכל כהן, ת"ז _________ע"י ב"כ עוה"ד ____________, מרח' ____________; טל': ________
- נ ג ד -
הנתבע: אלון ברק, ת"ז _________מרח' ____________
מהות התביעה: לשון הרעסכום התביעה: 212,000 ₪
כתב תביעה
א. הצדדים וסמכות השיפוט
1. התובעת היא רופאת עור מומחית, המנהלת מרפאה פרטית ברמת גן זה 14 שנה ובעלת עמוד מקצועי המונה כ-11,000 עוקבים; הנתבע הוא מטופל לשעבר במרפאתה.
2. לבית משפט נכבד זה הסמכות העניינית והמקומית לדון בתביעה, לפי סכומה ולפי מקום מגורי הנתבע.
ב. העובדות
3. ביום 18.1.2026 פרסם הנתבע בחשבון הפייסבוק שלו פוסט שבו נטען, בין היתר, כי התובעת "שורפת פנים" וכי מעשיה מהווים "רשלנות רפואית" (להלן: "הפרסום הראשון"). צילום מסך מצורף כנספח א'.
4. על פי צילומי המסך (נספח א'), צבר הפרסום הראשון בתוך 48 שעות 847 לייקים, 312 שיתופים ו-189 תגובות.
5. ביום 20.1.2026 שלחה התובעת לנתבע מכתב התראה (נספח ב'). חרף זאת, ביום 22.1.2026 פרסם הנתבע פוסט נוסף באותה רוח (להלן: "הפרסום השני"; נספח ג').
6. בעקבות הפרסומים בוטלו תורים במרפאה, ולתובעת נגרם אובדן הכנסה בסך 12,000 ₪ (דוח הכנסות - נספח ד').
ג. עילת התביעה
7. כל אחד מהפרסומים מהווה לשון הרע כמשמעה בסעיפים 1 ו-2 לחוק איסור לשון הרע, התשכ"ה-1965, ומקים עוולה אזרחית לפי סעיף 7 לחוק. מנוסח הפרסומים, תוכנם המכפיש והפצתם לקהל רחב עולה כוונה לפגוע בתובעת; פרסום הפוסט השני, חרף מכתב ההתראה, מחזק מסקנה זו.
ד. הסעד המבוקש
8. פיצוי ללא הוכחת נזק, בשל כוונה לפגוע, בסך 100,000 ₪ בגין כל אחד משני הפרסומים (סעיף 7א(ג) לחוק) - ובסך הכל 200,000 ₪; לחלופין, ככל שייקבע כי הפרסומים מהווים אותה לשון הרע - פיצוי אחד בסך 100,000 ₪.
9. פיצוי בגין נזק ממון - אובדן הכנסה - בסך 12,000 ₪.
10. סך התביעה: 212,000 ₪, בצירוף הפרשי הצמדה וריבית כדין, הוצאות משפט ושכ"ט עו"ד.
תאריך: __.__.2026
____________, עו"ד
ב"כ התובעת
- 1 -
Ready for your reviewReview marker: the paragraph is grounded in the material you provided. The marker is not part of the document (the document itself is in Hebrew - the product's output language).
The sample case is entirely fictional and shown for illustration only; it is not based on any real case or person.
The draft comes to you for professional review. The judgment - and the signature - are yours.
What goes in - facts. What comes out - law.
Same case. Two tools.
We asked a general language model and ORCA to write a cause-of-action paragraph from the same facts. Here's what came back.
- CA 4782/19 was never assigned - invented case law
- Settles for §7א with no subsection - misses the intent-aggravated §7א(ג) track the facts prove.
- Treats the two publications as one - the §7א(ג) cap applies per publication, not once.
- No dates, no exhibits, no fact references
- Correct cause of action with precise statutory citation
- Every element - publication, defamatory meaning, intent to harm - anchored to a fact from intake.
- Exact amount (₪212,000) with a documentary basis for each head.
- §7א(ג) × 2 publications (₪100,000 each), with §7א(ב) as the alternative track - not stacked.
What ORCA Produces
Civil Statement of Claim
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.
Evidence Map
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.
Strategy Memo
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:
How it works
Tell us what happened
Free text. ORCA asks what's missing.
ORCA does the work
Causes. Elements. Relief. Evidence - mapped end to end.
Review, sign, file
Ten sections in legal Hebrew, ready for your review. We email you a download link when it's ready.
Who is this for?
ORCA is built for lawyers running civil litigation. Not legal-tech demos, not enterprise pilots.
The solo litigator
You draft the pleadings yourself and want a second pair of eyes confirming every cause holds before filing.
The boutique or mid-size firm
As caseload grows, drafting quality has to stay uniform. The same professional standard on every case, and across every lawyer in the firm.
Stepping into a new area
The case falls in a less-familiar area, and you get the map of causes, elements, and evidence up front, before drafting even starts.
What ORCA doesn't do
Transparency matters to us. ORCA isn't for everything:
- Not for criminal, family, administrative, or rabbinical courts
- Doesn't represent, advise, or create attorney-client relationships
- Output is a reviewed draft - your job is final review and filing, not rewriting from scratch
- Professional judgment stays with you - ORCA handles the technical drafting
- Does not release documents that fail quality checks. There is no 'maybe good enough' state.
ORCA writes high-quality drafts. You decide, edit, and sign.
Questions we're asked
Won't this replace me?
No. ORCA writes drafts. It doesn't know how to look a client in the eye, negotiate a settlement, or sit through a hearing.
What about client confidentiality?
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.
How do I know the causes are legally correct?
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.
What if there's a mistake?
There will be mistakes. That's why it's a draft and why you're a lawyer. You review, correct, and sign.
Is it permissible for a lawyer to use AI for drafting?
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.
What's the difference between ORCA and a general AI assistant?
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.
What about malpractice liability? Who's responsible if there's an error?
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 →
Drafted to a partner's review standard. Checked before it reaches you.
See what ORCA produces with your facts.
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, one hour of review.
Try now - early access, freeAll 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.