Protect Yourself: Don't Let an Assailant Get Away With Hurting You

Legal Aid Foundation of LA.  The guy I spoke to was helpful.  He at least knew how to differentiate between civic and criminal law.  My claim against Paco--an assault--is a criminal charge.  This is what makes it so difficult to win.

Neighborhood Legal Services of LA County

Christian Legal Aid Services of LA

This page was a decent place to start.

JUSTIA Lawyers  

Another page to start on criminal advice.

Consumer Affairs: 800-952-5210

BBB: 213-631-3600

Small claims under $10k: 800-593-8222

Civil law and criminal law are two broad and separate entities of law with separate sets of laws and punishments.

According to William Geldart, Introduction to English Law 146 (D.C.M. Yardley ed., 9th ed. 1984), "The difference between civil law and criminal law turns on the difference between two different objects which law seeks to pursue - redress or punishment. The object of civil law is the redress of wrongs by compelling compensation or restitution: the wrongdoer is not punished; he only suffers so much harm as is necessary to make good the wrong he has done. The person who has suffered gets a definite benefit from the law, or at least he avoids a loss. On the other hand, in the case of crimes, the main object of the law is to punish the wrongdoer; to give him and others a strong inducement not to commit same or similar crimes, to reform him if possible and perhaps to satisfy the public sense that wrongdoing ought to meet with retribution.”

Examples of criminal law include cases of burglary, assault, battery and cases of murder. Examples where civil law applies include cases of negligence or malpractice.

Educational Malpractice? 

"On the whole, courts have rejected causes of action for educational malpractice against colleges and universities. However, courts have recognized charges of breach of contract against educational institutions when plaintiffs demonstrate that educational institutions failed to carry out specific promises.

Courts generally reject educational malpractice claims for one of three reasons. First, it is very difficult to define the duty to educate, a necessary predicate for pursuing a cause of action. In general, the courts have not recognized claims of malpractice that rest on an assertion of the general inadequacy in educational programs, although they have recognized charges for breach of contract against educational institutions when claims are pleaded with particularity. Second, causation is also difficult to determine. In fact, it is almost impossible to identify all of the reasons why students fail to achieve specified levels of education; the causes could be “physical, neurological, emotional, cultural [or] environmental (Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified School District, 1976, p. 861). Further, the persons responsible for the failure to educate could include teachers, parents, or students themselves. Thus, the courts have acknowledged the difficulty of determining whether officials or other parties, including the students, may have caused the bad educational outcomes. Third, some courts have indicated a strong reluctance to insert themselves into such a contentious issue of public policy as the quality of education. The courts almost universally express strong public policy concerns as a basis for rejecting causes of action for educational malpractice against colleges and universities. The judiciary has also expressed the fear that recognizing a cause of action for educational malpractice would open a floodgate of litigation, particularly at the level of primary and secondary schools, but also in higher education."