Facts in. Statement of claim out.
Enter facts in any language. Get a Hebrew statement of claim for Israeli courts. Not a starting point - a document the lawyer examines before filing. English summary available.
Facts in, Law out.
Facts. Just facts. What happened. When. Between whom. How much is at stake. Which documents you have.
ORCA identifies the domain. Maps causes. Verifies each element is supported. Calculates relief. Builds the evidence map. Out comes a complete statement of claim - ten sections, caption to signature.
What it doesn't do: fabricate. No fact that wasn't provided. No date that wasn't given. No document that wasn't attached. Every line traces back to input. Facts don't support a cause? It doesn't get in. Quietly. No asterisk.
The draft is ready. You examine it and decide whether to file.
A programmer builds a document generator. A litigator builds a decision system. ORCA was built by a litigator.
ORCA processes your facts - and only your facts - through a comprehensive legal knowledge layer and automated quality controls. The result: a statement of claim ready for your review and a strategy memo for case management.
Above the origin story: the five structural moves that separate a system producing legal-looking text from a system performing legal reasoning.
Why not just use a generic AI tool?
Fair question. Give a generic AI tool a good prompt with case facts, and you'll get a surprisingly good document. It knows Israeli law. It writes decent Hebrew. It structures arguments logically. But there's a gap between "good text" and "legal product." That gap is exactly why ORCA was built.
It can't be right the same way twice
Ask it to write the same statement of claim tomorrow and you'll get different causes, different ordering, different damage calculations, maybe a different forum. For a lawyer drafting one case - fine, you review and fix. For a product serving 100 lawyers - fatal. Client A gets breach of contract as lead cause, Client B with identical facts gets good faith. Both pay the same price. One is better. You can't explain why. ORCA's legal reasoning is deterministic: same facts, same domain, same causes selected, same strategy, same legal structure. The voice layer renders this as professional prose; legal substance does not vary between runs.
It doesn't know what it doesn't know
An LLM may confidently write that defamation has a 1-year limitation period - it won't stop to check that the civil period is actually 7 years under Israeli law. It doesn't have a knowledge layer that says "for this domain, check this specific rule." It fills gaps with confident prose. ORCA catches exactly that - not because the checks are smarter, but because they're deterministic against hand-authored knowledge.
It can't produce a filing-ready document
An LLM produces text. A filing-ready document needs: court formatting, continuous paragraph numbering, exhibit cross-references that match, a prayer for relief that sums correctly, party ID numbers, attorney license numbers, clean Hebrew with no English leakage, and a damage calculation worksheet. That's not an instructions problem. That's an engineering problem. The distance between "good text" and "filed document" is 60% of the work.
It doesn't remember what it learned
Every LLM conversation starts from zero. The lawyer who spent 3 hours perfecting prompts for a lease dispute starts over for the next lease dispute. The knowledge evaporates. ORCA's knowledge layer is cumulative. Every domain validated, every rule authored, every check added - it persists. The LLM is stateless. ORCA is not.
It can't scale a practice
A lawyer with a generic AI tool can compress the drafting cycle to a few hours (prompt engineering + review + formatting). Improvement over manual work. ORCA produces a review-ready statement of claim + strategy memo with the doctrinal grounding, evidence mapping, and quality checks already done. That's not "faster drafting" - it's a change in how the practice operates. A lawyer who took 3 cases a month can take 10.
ORCA isn't competing with the LLM. ORCA is what makes the LLM usable as a legal product. The LLM is the engine. ORCA is the car. Nobody buys an engine. They buy a car that starts every time, drives to the right destination, passes inspection, and doesn't explode.
What happens when a generic AI tool gets it wrong - and you don't catch it?
A generic document generator produces professional-looking text. But if it cites a non-existent statute — for instance "§26" or "§27א" of the Defamation Law as a supposed special limitation period — there's no mechanism to catch the error.
A lawyer who signs a pleading with fabricated facts or incorrect legislation faces professional liability. The tool won't bear responsibility - you will.
ORCA can't prevent every error. But it won't let you file a document that failed quality checks without your knowledge.
A generic AI tool was asked: "What is the statute of limitations for defamation?" It answered confidently: "One year, per Section 26 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law."
There is no Section 26 in the Defamation Law. The Defamation Law contains no special civil limitation provision. The correct answer: 7 years, per Section 5(1) of the Limitation Law, 1958. (Section 8 of the Defamation Law governs criminal complaint procedure, not civil claims.)
ORCA knows this because every section citation is verified against a statute registry, not derived from context. A section that doesn't exist isn't cited.
Why one lawyer with ORCA beats a team without it
Three associates without a senior partner will produce more pages, not better cases. One senior partner with ORCA will produce fewer pages - the right ones.
ORCA doesn't replace your professional judgment. It multiplies it. The mechanical preparation that used to consume the afternoon - absorbed. The doctrinal groundwork - causes, elements, relief, and the evidence map - is assembled in a single run. What's left for you: the decisions that require professional judgment.
How ORCA was built exactly this way →ORCA writes. You decide.
ORCA doesn't decide what a case is worth or whether to file. That judgment belongs to the attorney - built over thousands of cases, client conversations, and courtroom experience that no system captures or replaces.
What ORCA does: writes the statement of claim. Causes of action under Israeli law. Element framework. Relief calculation. Evidence map. Quality checks before the draft leaves the system. Precise work that used to take 8–15 hours.
An experienced attorney receiving a new case today spends the bulk of the first draft on work the lawyer already knows how to do: drafting facts, organizing exhibits, calculating relief, formatting, cross-checking. With ORCA, that mechanical layer comes pre-assembled. The attorney moves directly to the work that requires judgment - adjusting strategy, catching what only they can catch. The mechanical "write what you already know" hours go away. The "think what only you can think" review remains.
The risk isn't automation replacing attorneys. The risk is the opposite: attorneys who adopt tools that multiply their capacity are positioned to handle more cases, at higher quality, faster. Attorneys who don't will compete against those who do - and feel it.
The replacement risk isn't ORCA. It's an attorney using ORCA competing against an attorney who isn't.
A complete statement of claim. Not a "starting point."
Word document in legal Hebrew, ready for your review. Not to rewrite - to review. The difference is days.
Ten sections. The way you were taught. Only the mechanical drafting layer is no longer your work:
Caption and Party Details
Court, parties, representation, nature of claim, amount, calculated fee, summons to defendant.
Procedural Opening
Party definitions, relief request, costs and VAT, address for service.
Introduction
Summary of the dispute - nature of the conflict, relationship between parties, the wrong in brief.
Factual Background
The story of facts in full narrative - background, trust period, turning point, escalation, damage. Each fact references an exhibit.
Jurisdiction
Subject matter and territorial jurisdiction - based on amount and nature of the matter.
Causes of Action
"The defendant breached... pursuant to section X... by..." - declarative drafting. A cause without sufficient factual basis isn't included at all.
Damages
Heads of damage with quantification. Every amount grounded in fact and reasoning. Not "in an amount to be determined."
Relief Table
Relief, cause, legal basis, exhibit, amount - one row per head of damage. Interest and linkage from the date of the facts.
Evidence Map
Exhibit table, references to facts and causes, witness list, gaps for document discovery.
Signature
Date, signature, representation details. Ready for your review and editing.
In addition to the statement of claim, ORCA produces a strategy memo - an internal document that analyzes cause strength, identifies vulnerabilities, and evaluates bargaining position. Not for the court file - for the client meeting and pre-trial preparation.
Legal Hebrew you won't be embarrassed by
Israeli courts require filings in Hebrew. Most AI tools translate from English - producing Hebrew that sounds like Hebrew. ORCA doesn't translate. Documents are written in original legal Hebrew - the language Israeli courts expect. A level a senior attorney wouldn't be embarrassed to sign.
No transliterations. Not "contract." Not "negligence." Not "damages" in English. No slang, no colloquial language, no criminal terms in civil context.
"The plaintiff seeks..." not "The plaintiff wants." "Due to" not "because of." "The Honorable Court" not "the court." Amounts in ₪100,000 format. Dates in 15.3.2024 format. Exhibits as "Exhibit A, B, C."
Terms like "fundamental breach" or "piercing the corporate veil" appear only when there's an appropriate legal basis - not as decoration.
Every statement of claim from ORCA passes dozens of automated quality checks - structure, drafting, causes of action, elements, relief, legal accuracy, and internal consistency. A document that doesn't meet the standard doesn't leave the system. Not as a draft, not with an asterisk.
The review also found gaps - and we fix them. The standard is continuous improvement, not marketing the status quo.
Three steps. From facts to statement of claim.
Tell us what happened
10–20 minutes of free text - the facts as your client told them. ORCA identifies what's missing and asks follow-up questions.
ORCA works
Domain identification, cause mapping, relief calculation, evidence map construction, quality control. Then - a complete statement of claim.
Review, sign, file
A ready Word document. Review, correct what's needed, and file. Your time goes only to judgment calls.
What goes in ← What comes out
A client tells you what happened. ORCA produces a statement of claim.
Listen, I need urgent help. I'm Gil, Gil Moran, ID 200000001. Living at 44 Allenby St, Ramat Gan.
Not one domain. Dozens of domains.
Dozens of domains. From contracts to insolvency. Each with its own knowledge module - deepest in defamation and contracts.
Each domain with dedicated knowledge. Laws. Cause elements. Evidence types. Relief. Not one template for all. Lease handled differently than business contract breach. Contract breach differently than minority oppression. That's how court works. That's how ORCA works.
Want to see what ORCA produces from your facts?
Enter a case description - and get a review-ready Hebrew statement of claim for Israeli courts.
₪100 per run. Early access, not market price.