Products
Every document is built from your facts, not from templates. Here's what you'll get.
Statement of Claim
A complete, review-ready pleading - causes, elements, evidence, and relief. You decide whether to file.
Strategy Memo
Case strength analysis, attack angles, and filing priorities.
Defense Memo
Weakness analysis of the opposing SOC and full defense strategy.
Statement of Defense
Formal response to the claim with targeted defense lines.
The 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: D. Cohen, ID No. XXXXX, attorney and business consultant, of 14 HaBrosh St., Tel Aviv
Defendant: A. Levy Management Services Ltd., Co. No. 51-XXXXXX, of 88 Herzl St., Ramat Gan
Cause of action: Breach of a consulting agreement
On 15.3.2025 the parties entered into an agreement for the provision of business consulting services (the "Agreement"). Under the Agreement, the Plaintiff undertook to provide the Defendant with monthly strategic consulting services, against a monthly payment of ₪25,000 plus VAT, payable by the 10th of each month.
The Plaintiff performed his part of the Agreement in full and professionally. Over the five months of engagement (March–July 2025), the Plaintiff delivered 14 consulting reports to the Defendant, attended 22 working meetings, and produced an annual strategic plan that was adopted by the Defendant's board of directors.
As of 1.8.2025, the Defendant ceased paying the monthly consideration, despite the Plaintiff's repeated and reiterated demands. The Defendant raised no claim as to the quality or performance of the services up to the date payments stopped. The total accrued debt, as of the date this claim is filed, stands at ₪125,000.
Relief sought: The Court is requested to order the Defendant to pay the sum of ₪125,000, together with linkage differentials and statutory interest from 1.8.2025 until actual payment, as well as court costs and attorney's fees.
Cause Analysis
| Cause | Strength | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | High | Signed contract + 5 unpaid invoices - a solid evidentiary foundation |
| Unjust enrichment | Medium | Alternative - the Defendant benefited from the services without consideration |
Risk assessment
The Defendant may argue defective performance of the services. It is recommended to attach the 14 consulting reports as evidence of full performance, along with the minutes of the board meeting at which the strategic plan was adopted.
Filing recommendation: Magistrate Court (claim amount below ₪2.5 million). Prefer the expedited track - amount below ₪75,000 if it can be reduced.
Stats for the case shown above
Statement of Defense + Defense Memo
Upload the opponent's claim, get a complete defense strategy with a Statement of Defense.
Analysis of the statement of claim's weaknesses
The breach cause appears strong on its face - a signed contract together with 5 unpaid invoices forms an evidentiary foundation that is hard to rebut. Nonetheless, three material points of vulnerability were found:
- Scope of the undertaking: the Agreement defines "strategic consulting" without specifying deliverables - an opening for a partial-performance argument
- Approval of deliverables: there is no formal acceptance mechanism in the Agreement - the Plaintiff cannot prove the Defendant received each report
- Cessation of payment: the Defendant stopped paying in August, but the Plaintiff sent no formal notice until October - a weakness in the fundamental-breach argument
Recommended line of defense: focus on the defective-performance argument. Combine it with a set-off claim - the Defendant paid for 5 months without proper consideration. This is the strongest line of defense.
In the Magistrate Court of Tel Aviv–Jaffa
Defendant: A. Levy Management Services Ltd., by its counsel, Adv. ___
General denial and reservations
The Defendant denies the Plaintiff's allegations except insofar as expressly admitted below. The Defendant admits the existence of the Agreement of 15.3.2025 and the payment terms set out therein. The Defendant denies that the Plaintiff performed his part of the Agreement in full and professionally as alleged.
Substantive defense - defective performance
The services provided by the Plaintiff were partial, defective, and did not meet the required professional standard. Of the 14 alleged reports, 6 were submitted with considerable delay and 3 others contained generic recommendations not tailored to the Defendant's needs. The Defendant raised concerns regarding the quality of the services during working meetings, as documented in email correspondence of 12.6.2025 and 28.7.2025.
Set-off claim
Even if some debt is found to exist, in light of the defective performance the value of the services falls far short of the sum claimed. The Defendant is entitled to a set-off in the amount of the difference, and reserves its right to file a counterclaim for the damages caused by the defective consulting.
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 and contracts, where the pipeline has run end to end.
Plus dozens of sub-domains. Don't see yours? Let us know.
₪100 per run. Early access.
Every run includes a complete pleading + strategy memo + evidence gap report. This is early access, not market price - when the product is ready, the price will reflect the value.
Fixed pricing per document. No subscription. No monthly fee. Pay only when you need it.
View full pricing details →You've seen what ORCA does. Now - your case.
Start with your case