Team size:  Ten 

Career Biography

Matias Hercovich is managing director for Core LAC at FedEx LAC, where he leads legal strategy and operations across more than 48 jurisdictions and territories. With deep expertise in cross-border legal matters, Hercovich supports FedEx’s regional growth, compliance, and governance initiatives.

Prior to FedEx, he senior in-house roles at high-growth companies and startups including chief legal officer at Tekmovil, global general counsel at Crystal Lagoons, LATAM general counsel at Phoenix Tower International and global VP of legal at Selina. In these positions, he built and led international legal teams, managed complex M&A and commercial transactions, and drove legal innovation across tech, hospitality, and IP-intensive industries.

Hercovich began his career in top-tier law firms, including Greenberg Traurig LLP in Miami and Prieto y Compañía in Chile, where he specialised in corporate law, capital markets, and intellectual property. He has authored books and multiple articles on domain names and trademarks.

Hercovich holds an LL.M. from Columbia Law School (having obtained the Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar recognition for outstanding academic achievement), and graduated cum laude from Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, with additional diplomas in telecommunications and IP in Universidad de Chile. He has been recognised several times in Legal 500’s GC Powerlist US: Latin America Specialists and GC Powerlist US: Miami, and featured in Vanguard Law, LACCA and Modern Counsel magazines.

How do you approach managing legal aspects during periods of instability or crisis to ensure the organisation’s resilience?

Managing legal aspects during periods of instability or crisis requires a balance between protecting the organisation’s interests and preserving its human capital. This question reminds me of my experience working for a company in the hospitality industry, the second most impacted sector during the COVID-19 pandemic, after the aeronautical industry. The collapse in demand placed immense pressure on management to take drastic measures to ensure survival. One of those measures was a request to reduce payroll by approximately 75%, a move that could have easily dismantled the team I had worked so hard to build. 

Initially, I faced two stark options: terminating a significant portion of my team and operating with a skeleton crew, or reducing salaries across the board, risking the loss of key talent.  

After careful consideration, I chose the second path, grounded in transparency and solidarity. I convened my team and explained the gravity of the situation openly. I emphasised that my priority was to protect jobs during this uncertain period and that the only way to achieve this was through shared sacrifice. I communicated that everyone’s salary would be reduced substantially, but no one would lose their position.  

The initial reaction was challenging, particularly from high performers who felt the impact most acutely. However, by framing the decision around the company’s purpose and the legal department’s critical role in navigating the crisis, I was able to foster a sense of unity. I reminded the team that our relevance during these times was greater than ever, ensuring compliance, renegotiating contracts, and mitigating risks were essential to the organisation’s survival. 

Ultimately, this strategy paid off. We maintained full team continuity throughout the pandemic without terminations or resignations. From a leadership perspective, we strengthened resilience by preserving institutional knowledge and morale. 

This experience taught me that during crises, legal management is not just about enforcing rules. It’s about enabling solutions that balance compliance with empathy. By combining transparent communication, legal rigor, and a commitment to shared purposes, organisations can weather instability while safeguarding both their people and their long-term viability. 

AI has been taken seriously as a potentially revolutionary technological change in the legal world for a number of years now. Has it had a meaningful impact in how your legal team works in this time?

Artificial intelligence has been discussed for years as a transformative force in the legal industry, but its real impact is only beginning to materialise. In my experience, the AI revolution in legal is still in its early stages, especially in a traditionally conservative field like ours, yet the changes we are seeing are undeniably significant and make us rethink the future of lawyers. 

As managing director overseeing legal operations across over 48 jurisdictions in Latin America and the Caribbean, I am constantly approached by Alternative Legal Service Providers (ALSPs) offering AI-driven solutions for challenges we face, and even for ones we don’t. This illustrates both the enthusiasm and the uncertainty surrounding AI adoption. Legal teams tend to move cautiously, not only because of the inherent risk in our work but also because technology is shaking the very foundations of the profession. However, the benefits of AI are too compelling to ignore. For in-house teams, AI promises greater productivity and lower costs. A clear example from my own practice: previously, answering a simple legal mapping question, such as identifying the applicable law on a specific matter across all jurisdictions, would have required engaging external counsel at a cost of at least USD$1,000 per jurisdiction and waiting up to a month if not more for responses.  

Today, AI tools allow me to obtain those answers in under 60 seconds. With a junior counsel verifying that the information comes from the latest official sources, I can confidently share accurate guidance with the business the same day. This is a game-changer for responsiveness and cost efficiency. And this is only the beginning.  

We are starting to automate legal workflows and use AI for first-level reviews and out-of-the-box answers, always under human supervision for now. These advancements will reshape the structure of in-house departments and law firms alike. Routine, playbook-driven, and low-end legal work will increasingly be transitioned to ALSPs or fully automated through AI. Law firms that rely on billing for commodity work will struggle to remain competitive and may even disappear. The future belongs to providers who deliver true value-added services, practical, business-oriented advice rather than theoretical analysis. 

In short, while adoption is gradual, AI is already making a meaningful impact on how we operate. It enhances speed, reduces costs, and frees legal professionals to focus on strategic, high-value work. As technology matures, its influence will only deepen, redefining not just processes but the very nature of legal service delivery. 

What factors influence your team’s decision to use external legal services versus handling matters in-house, and what criteria are used to evaluate their performance?

The decision to engage external legal services versus handling matters in-house is driven by a combination of strategic, operational, and jurisdictional factors. As a leader managing generalists across multiple jurisdictions with diverse legal frameworks, languages, and cultures, my guiding principle has always been to bring as much core business work in-house as possible, with emphasis on ‘can’. This approach ensures that the internal legal team focuses on matters where being an insider creates real value, such as understanding the company’s risk tolerance, operational interdependencies, and strategic priorities. These are areas where internal knowledge and proximity to the business allow us to deliver solutions that are not only legally sound but also aligned with organisational objectives. 

However, certain types of work naturally sit better with external counsel. Highly specialised matters, complex litigation, and issues requiring deep jurisdictional expertise often demand resources and knowledge beyond what an in-house team can reasonably maintain. External counsel becomes indispensable in these scenarios, particularly when the stakes involve significant financial, reputational, or regulatory risk. Additionally, Alternative legal service providers can deliver scalability and immediate bandwidth for urgent or high-volume matters, allowing the internal team to remain focused on strategic initiatives rather than being consumed by transactional overload. The role of the in-house team is not static; it evolves as internal processes mature. Initially, the priority is to identify and resolve recurring pain points through solutions that can be replicated, systematised, and scaled. Once these processes are optimised, whether through automation or transition to alternative legal service providers, the department can shift toward more complex, strategic work, even reclaiming tasks previously outsourced to Firms. This progression enhances the legal team’s value proposition within the organisation, positioning it as a driver of efficiency and innovation rather than a cost center. 

External counsel, however, will always remain relevant for truly practical and actionable value-added services. In today’s environment, where technology can deliver theoretical legal analysis at scale, the differentiator for law firms lies in providing practical, business-oriented advice that supports decision-making and mitigates risk in real-world scenarios. Their ability to combine technical expertise with commercial insight is what justifies their engagement. 

When evaluating external counsel, we apply a scorecard that emphasises alignment with business outcomes rather than mere compliance. Key criteria include tailoring advice to support strategic objectives, demonstrating value through efficiency and measurable results, and maintaining clear, concise, and business-oriented communication. Responsiveness is critical, as is the ability to leverage technology for cost-effective service delivery. We also expect firms to offer scenario planning and crisis response guidance, ensuring preparedness for unforeseen challenges. Finally, we value a collaborative approach that encourages two-way feedback and continuous improvement, fostering a relationship that evolves with the company’s needs. 

In essence, the decision to outsource legal work is not binary but dynamic, balancing internal capabilities with external expertise to achieve optimal outcomes. By focusing on core business work internally and leveraging external counsel for specialised, high-impact matters, we create a legal function that is both efficient and strategically indispensable.