Products
Every document is built from your facts, not from templates. Here's what you'll get.
Products overview
Statement of Claim
A complete, review-ready pleading - causes, elements, evidence, and relief. You decide whether to file.
Learn moreDefense Memo
Weakness analysis of the opposing SOC and full defense strategy.
Learn moreStatement of Defense
Formal response to the claim with targeted defense lines.
Learn moreThe statement of claim is the first product. In development:
The same engine, on the other side. Receives the opposing party's statement of claim, analyzes it clause by clause, and produces a statement of defense with a specific response to each claim.
ORCA runs the statement of claim it wrote against its own defense engine, and shows the attorney the picture of vulnerabilities - before opposing counsel finds them.
The system will read the agreement, letters, minutes, and cite specific clauses rather than making general references to exhibits. At launch, the same security policy as the main system will apply.
Facts. Not conclusions.
Many legal-AI tools ask the lawyer to summarize the case: "my client was a victim of negligence," "they acted with intent to harm." But these are not facts. They are legal conclusions. A system that accepts them as input becomes a renderer of pre-existing beliefs, not a reasoning tool.
ORCA captures observable facts only: what was written, when, by whom, to which audience, with which supporting documents. The legal conclusions (negligence, intent, fraud, breach) it infers itself. If the facts do not support, ORCA does not invent.
Statement of Claim + Strategy Memo
Enter facts, get a review-ready Statement of Claim with full strategic analysis.
In the Magistrate Court of Tel Aviv–Jaffa
Plaintiff: Dr. Michal Cohen, ID No. XXXXX, dermatologist, of 18 Sokolov St., Ramat Gan
Defendant: Alon Barak, ID No. XXXXX, of 42 Weizmann St., Tel Aviv
Cause of action: Online defamation with intent to harm (Defamation Law, 1965, §7א(ג))
On 15.1.2026 the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with laser treatment at her clinic, pursuant to a signed informed-consent form detailing the expected side effects (Exhibit 2). On 18.1.2026 the Defendant published a post on his open Facebook profile calling the Plaintiff a "dangerous doctor" and attributing to her "burning my face" - despite his knowledge of those very side effects he had signed for.
Within 48 hours the first post drew 847 likes, 312 shares, and 189 comments. On 20.1.2026 the Plaintiff messaged the Defendant privately and explained that the redness is an expected, transient side effect. Just two days later, on 22.1.2026, the Defendant escalated and published a second post attributing "medical fraud" to the Plaintiff.
The deliberate escalation after the explicit explanation establishes the intent-to-harm element under §7א(ג). Following the publications, 8 patients cancelled their appointments within 72 hours of each post - a direct, documented income loss of ₪12,000 (Exhibit 6), alongside reputational harm to a professional standing built over 14 years. Total claim: ₪212,000.
Relief sought: The Court is requested to order the Defendant to pay statutory damages of ₪100,000 for each of the two publications under §7א(ג) of the Defamation Law, documented income loss of ₪12,000, and a correction-or-retraction order at his expense under §9(א)(2) - ₪212,000 in total, together with linkage differentials, statutory interest, and court costs.
Cause Analysis
| Cause | Strength | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Online defamation (§7א(ג)) | High | Two infringing publications with intent to harm; the intent is anchored in a signed informed-consent form and in the escalation after the Plaintiff's notice. 7 of 7 exhibits available |
| Invasion of privacy | Excluded | Doctrinally inapt for defamatory speech - the correct cause is defamation; joining it would weaken the case |
Risk assessment
The anticipated defenses - truth (§14) and good-faith opinion (§15(4)) - require a response. It is recommended to attach an independent professional opinion confirming the treatment met the standard of care, along with affidavits from patients linking the appointment cancellations to the publications.
Filing recommendation: Magistrate Court (claim amount ₪212,000, below ₪2.5 million). Realistic settlement estimate: approximately ₪167,000.
Stats for the case shown above
Statement of Defense + Defense Memo
In development, the same engine on the defense side: analyzing the opposing claim to produce a Defense Memo and Statement of Defense. Not yet active.
Analysis of the statement of claim's weaknesses
The defamation cause rests on two documented publications - a strong prima facie foundation. Nonetheless, three material points of vulnerability that can be leveraged in defense were found:
- Fact vs. opinion: some of the expressions can be framed as good-faith opinion on a service of public interest - an opening for a §15(4) defense
- Causal link to the pecuniary loss: the 8 appointment cancellations rest on circumstantial evidence only; there is no direct evidence linking any single cancellation to a post - an opening to deny the income loss (₪12,000)
- Truth defense: to the extent the Defendant can establish actual harm beyond the expected side effects, a §14 defense (truth + public interest) becomes available - independent medical documentation should be gathered
Recommended line of defense: combine a good-faith opinion defense (§15(4)) with a denial of the causal link to the pecuniary loss. Present the publications as a sincere consumer review of a treatment experience, and demand positive proof of the source of the cancellations.
In the Magistrate Court of Tel Aviv–Jaffa
Defendant: Alon Barak, by his counsel, Adv. ___
General denial and reservations
The Defendant denies the Plaintiff's allegations except insofar as expressly admitted below. The Defendant admits publishing the two posts of 18.1.2026 and 22.1.2026, but denies that they constitute prohibited defamation or that they were published with intent to harm as alleged.
Substantive defense - good-faith opinion (§15(4))
The publications constitute a sincere opinion by a patient regarding a treatment experience and a service touching on public health. The Defendant described his experience in good faith and out of a desire to warn prospective patients, without intent to harm. The §15(4) defense under the Defamation Law applies to an opinion expressed in connection with a matter of public interest.
Denial of the causal link to the loss
The Defendant denies the causal link between the publications and the alleged appointment cancellations. Cancellations may stem from a variety of causes, and the Plaintiff has presented no direct evidence linking any particular cancellation to a specific post. The alleged income loss (₪12,000) rests on speculation alone.
Stats for the case shown above
Built across Israeli civil and commercial law
For each domain ORCA carries a structured knowledge layer - causes of action, elements, relief calculations, and evidence maps. Depth is greatest in defamation, where the pipeline has run end to end on a real archetype; contracts come next.
Plus dozens of sub-domains. Don't see yours? Let us know.
Early access, free.
Every run includes a complete pleading + strategy memo + evidence gap report. Early access, free - when the product is ready, the price will reflect the value.
Free during early access. No subscription. No monthly fee.
View full pricing details →You've seen what ORCA does. Now - your case.
Start with your case