Ruzanna Poghosyan

Standing up for people has always come naturally to me.

As far back as I can remember, I was the person who stepped in when I thought someone was being treated unfairly. I defended classmates from bullies, argued their side when no one seemed to be listening, and rarely found it easy to stay quiet when I believed someone needed a voice.

I didn't know then that I would become a criminal defense attorney. It was simply part of who I was.

CAll (818)-418-1959

I grew up in a small town in the former Soviet Union and came to the United States for what was supposed to be a one-month visit. I didn’t speak English, but almost immediately, I knew I wanted to build my life here.

Two years later, I was in law school, learning the law while still learning the language—sometimes with an Armenian dictionary in one hand and a Russian dictionary in the other.

While in law school, I became a certified law clerk with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, working in its Health Care Fraud Division. That experience gave me an early opportunity to see how criminal cases are examined and built from the government’s side.

After graduating and passing the California Bar, I chose the other side.

I founded RP Defense Law in 2008 because I wanted to practice criminal defense the way I believed it should be practiced: independently, honestly, and with the freedom to make decisions based on what I believed was right for the person I represented.

There is a human being behind every case

For more than 18 years, I have represented people accused of crimes in California state and federal courts. Some come to me after an arrest. Others come before charges are ever filed, when they learn that federal agents or investigators are asking questions.

Whatever brings someone to me, I don’t forget that behind the case is a person—and usually a family—with a reputation, a career, a business, children, or a future that may be affected by what happens next. I am direct with my clients. I tell them what is good about their case and what worries me. I explain the risks, the options, and the consequences.

You may not always like what I tell you in the beginning. But you will understand why I told you the truth.

My job is not to make you like me. My job is to make sure you understand what you are facing and that we are prepared for it.

Strategy is knowing why you are making the next move.

I have never believed that the best criminal defense lawyer is necessarily the loudest person in the courtroom.

There are times to fight, times to negotiate, times to listen, and times to take a case as far as it needs to go. The important thing is knowing the difference.

Chess is one of my favorite games because it requires the same kind of thinking I bring to a criminal case. You don’t make a move simply because you can. You think about what it will cause the other side to do next.

That is how I approach the prosecution’s case. What are they trying to prove? What evidence do they actually have? Where are the weaknesses? What are they likely to do next? And what can we do now to change where the case is headed?

We don’t react. We anticipate and execute.

My approach to trial advocacy was further shaped by my training at Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyers College. That training taught me to look beyond the evidence and the legal arguments and find the human story underneath the case. To tell that story effectively, I have to be willing to be real with the jury myself—open, honest, and sometimes vulnerable. A jury can tell when a lawyer is simply performing or trying to sell them something. I want them to understand my client as a human being, not just as the person sitting at the defense table accused of a crime.

That is what Gerry meant when he taught us that “It all begins with you.” Before I can ask a jury to see the humanity in my client, I have to be willing to show them mine.

What strategy looks like in real cases.

I can talk about strategy all day. These cases show what I mean.

38.5 Kilograms of Methamphetamine — And a 10-Year Federal Mandatory Minimum

United States v. Hernandez-Ortiz, No. 1:20-CR-00039

My client was arrested after law enforcement found approximately 38.5 kilograms of methamphetamine in the trunk of his car. He was federally indicted for possession with intent to distribute and was facing a 10-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence.

This was not an easy case. The quantity of drugs was enormous, and on paper, the government’s case looked devastating.

But my job was not to look at 38.5 kilograms of methamphetamine and assume the case was over. My job was to go backwards and examine exactly how the government obtained that evidence in the first place.

I found significant issues involving the initial stop and the search of the vehicle, along with other issues in the government’s case, and I litigated them.

That changed the trajectory of the case.

Ultimately, the case was resolved in a way that avoided the 10-year mandatory minimum. My client received credit for the approximately three years he had spent in custody while we litigated the case and was released.

That case represents exactly what I mean when I talk about strategy. Sometimes the evidence looks overwhelming until you stop looking only at what the government found and start asking how they were legally able to find it.

A Major Hospice Fraud Case — Without Additional Jail Time

People v. Canales et al., No. FWV22000555

My client was the owner of hospice companies and was charged along with approximately 15 other defendants in a large healthcare fraud prosecution involving multiple hospices—a case that received significant public attention.

Cases like this are complicated. There are multiple defendants, large volumes of medical and financial records, competing theories of responsibility, and a tendency for everyone charged in the same case to be viewed as part of one large scheme.

I litigated my client’s case for nearly two years.

The ultimate resolution was probation, with credit based on the time he had spent on court-ordered electronic monitoring as a condition of his release. Other than the period between his arrest and the granting of bail, he did not spend additional time in jail.

But what mattered most was not simply the word “probation.”

He was able to remain at home and raise his child while the case was pending, and he remained out of jail after the case was resolved.

That is why I say the result of a criminal case cannot always be measured by looking at a sentencing document. You have to understand what was at stake in that particular client’s life.

When the Government Wanted Prison — And the Court Gave Probation

United States v. Perez, No. 2:20-CR-00588

In another serious federal criminal case, the government was asking the court to send my client to federal prison.

I was asking for straight probation.

When the difference between those two outcomes is a client walking out of the courthouse or being taken into federal custody, preparation matters.

I prepared an extensive sentencing memorandum and supporting sentencing package designed to show the court something that cannot always be understood from an indictment, a presentence report, or a sentencing guideline calculation: who my client actually was as a human being.

The court imposed straight probation.

But one of the moments from that case that has stayed with me came before the sentence was imposed, when the judge stopped during the hearing and said:

“Again, Ms. Poghosyan, I want to give credit where credit is due. This may be one of the most comprehensive sentencing packages that I have received in my seven years on the bench. I have a crystal clear picture of who your client is. And, Mr. Perez, for whatever it’s worth, you have been well served by your lawyer because she clearly put everything into it…”

That compliment meant something to me because it described exactly what I believe criminal defense requires.

You do not simply ask a judge for mercy.

You give the judge a reason to see your client differently.

And you prepare the case so thoroughly that when the moment comes to ask for the result you believe is right, you have given the court everything it needs to get there.

Past results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future case. Every case is different and depends on its own facts, evidence, procedural history, and circumstances.

The person I am outside the courtroom affects the lawyer I am inside it.

My husband and I built our life in this country together. We raised three children, and today I am also a grandmother. Having a family of my own changed the way I understand what is at stake when I represent someone else’s.

A career isn’t always just a job. A reputation may have taken decades to build. And when someone’s freedom is threatened, the consequences rarely affect that person alone.

Being a wife, a mother, and a grandmother hasn’t made me softer as a criminal defense lawyer.

It has made me understand more deeply what I am protecting.

After almost 20 years of practicing criminal defense, I still believe what I understood instinctively long before I became a lawyer: Everyone deserves to have someone willing to stand beside them, understand their side, and make sure it is heard.

Education

Bachelor’s Degree — Armenia
Glendale University College of Law
Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyers College

Memberships & Accolades

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
The National Trial Lawyers – Top 100 Trial Lawyers
Trial Lawyers College
Los Angeles County Bar Association
Beverly Hills Bar Association
California Public Defenders Association

Bar Admissions

California
Federal Courts
- Central District of California
- Northern District of California
- Southern District of California
- Western District of California

Beverly Hills Office

Bank of America Building
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. #301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210

Request a Confidential Consultation

"*" indicates required fields