Alexander Godínez Vargas founded Godínez Legal 25 years ago as a boutique firm specializing exclusively in labor law, in a Costa Rican market where larger, full-service firms also maintain established labor practices. Before advising employers, he was a labor judge on the Court of Appeals, an alternate magistrate on the Constitutional Chamber, and an ILO consultant in six countries in the region. In this conversation, he explains what leads a company to choose a boutique firm instead of handling everything with its main office, how he assesses the risk of an algorithm’s involvement in a dismissal decision, and why he is building a firm designed to outlast his own career, just as the legislative debate on digital platforms and the use of artificial intelligence in human resources management begins to strain the Costa Rican labor framework.
Godínez Legal celebrates 25 years as a boutique labor law firm in a market where full-service firms also have established and highly ranked labor practices. What type of client specifically chooses a specialized boutique instead of handling everything with their main firm?
The difference lies in the level of depth and specialization required for each situation. Many companies work successfully with a general legal firm to address their overall legal needs, but turn to a boutique firm when facing particularly complex, sensitive, or high-impact labor issues. Others, however, choose a boutique firm from the outset as a strategic partner to receive ongoing labor law advice for the day-to-day management of their business. In both cases, they value the opportunity to work directly and continuously with the firm’s most experienced lawyers, both on strategic matters and in the routine management of their labor relations. This allows them to have access to professionals who have in-depth knowledge of their organization and to receive solutions specifically tailored to their objectives and particular circumstances.
Over the past 25 years, we have had the opportunity to advise some of the most prominent companies in their respective sectors. Due to their size, visibility, and market position, the labor decisions they make can have significant economic, operational, and reputational repercussions, and can even influence how certain business sectors or categories of workers are subsequently analyzed by authorities or courts. This has required us to develop a particularly rigorous and strategic advisory approach, capable of both understanding the legal dimensions of each matter and anticipating and minimizing its implications for the business.
At Godínez Legal, we have built a practice dedicated exclusively to Labor Law. This allows us to support our clients not only when a conflict arises, but also beforehand: when they need to make decisions regarding talent management, reorganizations, compensation, compliance, or complex labor relations.
Our vision is that Labor Law should not be solely a defensive function. Well managed, it is a tool for making better business decisions. Our responsibility does not end when we issue a legal opinion. It begins at that moment. Because every opinion we provide must be strong enough to support a business decision today and consistent enough to sustain it, if necessary, years later in court.
You were a labor judge on the Court of Appeals and a substitute magistrate on the Constitutional Chamber before founding a firm that now exclusively represents employers. What did you learn from being on the side of the judiciary that you now apply from the opposite side, and is there anything about this change of role that still causes you tension?
The judiciary profoundly transformed my approach to analyzing labor issues. As a judge, I learned that a decision is not evaluated solely by its outcome, but by how it was reached: the facts that support it, the available evidence, the reasonableness of the process, and the proportionality of the measure.
Today, as a business consultant, I constantly use that perspective. When I have to analyze a complex decision, I try to do an exercise: I ask myself how a judge would examine it if, years later, they had to hear a related dispute. That experience is an extraordinary preventative tool. The judge only encounters the problem after it has already occurred; the consultant has the opportunity to intervene beforehand, helping to shape better decisions.
I don’t see this change of role as a tension between opposing positions, but rather as the application, from a different function, of the same ethical standards, rigor, balance, and responsibility. Being a corporate lawyer doesn’t mean losing sight of the diverse interests that exist in an employment relationship. It means understanding that organizations also need legal certainty, clear rules, and well-founded decisions to grow.
Your work as an ILO consultant led you to evaluate labor relations systems in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, and the Dominican Republic, in addition to Costa Rica. In what specific aspect would you say the Costa Rican labor framework is clearly lagging behind its neighbors, and in what aspect is it ahead?
My international experience has taught me that a labor system cannot be analyzed solely from the perspective of the text of a law. Institutions, how rules are interpreted, and trust among stakeholders are also crucial.
As an ILO consultant, I had the opportunity to analyze labor systems in various countries in the region, participate in processes related to compliance with fundamental labor conventions within the context of CAFTA-DR, and train lawyers, university professors, judges, and representatives of government, unions, and employers. This experience allowed me to observe that often the challenge lies not in the absence of regulations, but in properly understanding their scope and applying them correctly.
Costa Rica has significant strengths in its labor institutions, its legal tradition, and the presence of companies that have incorporated international compliance standards. In these aspects, it is well-positioned compared to other countries in the region. Its main weakness lies in the speed with which the labor framework adapts to economic changes. New technologies, digital models, and business transformations demand systems capable of protecting fundamental rights, but also of adapting. Ultimately, a robust labor system requires three elements: clear regulations, reliable institutions, and stakeholders prepared to understand the system’s logic.
The Legislative Assembly is moving forward with a bill that would recognize minimum labor rights for delivery drivers on digital platforms. You advise companies in sectors such as retail and distribution: how prepared are these clients for a potential change in the status of those they currently treat as independent contractors?
Digital platforms represent one of the great challenges of contemporary Labor Law because they force us to review legal categories created for a different economic reality.
For several years I have analyzed this phenomenon, including a study on the regulation of work in virtual platform companies in Costa Rica published by ECLAC. The main conclusion is that the debate cannot be reduced solely to determining whether a person is dependent or independent. The real challenge is finding a balance between social protection, business innovation, and legal certainty.
Technology changes how work is organized, but it doesn’t eliminate fundamental questions: who makes the relevant decisions, what is the actual level of autonomy, how are risks distributed, and what happens in practice? Therefore, companies must analyze these models holistically. Reviewing contracts isn’t enough; it’s essential to understand how things actually work. The best-prepared organizations will be those that don’t wait for legal reforms to force them to revise their structures, but rather anticipate risks and build sustainable models.
Part of your practice includes restructuring compensation schemes for senior management and terminating highly complex contracts. Can you share, without identifying the client, a case where early intervention prevented litigation that would have been much more costly if handled reactively?
In complex labor matters, especially those involving senior management, the solution does not begin with the legal conflict; it begins with a proper understanding of the parties’ interests.
On numerous occasions, we have supported the restructuring decision of senior management personnel with their complex compensation schemes, accrued benefits, and professional expectations built up over years. From a business perspective, there is a need to ensure an orderly transition that does not affect the continuity of these personnel, while also preventing, rather than merely postponing, future conflicts. From the executive’s perspective, there are personal and professional factors that must be considered with the utmost care.
In these cases, the best strategy is not to initiate the approach from rigid positions, but rather to open spaces for dialogue, build trust, and clearly define the legitimate interests of each party. Our work consists of identifying risks, outlining possible scenarios, and facilitating a conversation that allows for a balanced solution without resorting to litigation. Experience shows that a well-structured negotiation can prevent costly conflicts and preserve valuable professional relationships. Prevention doesn’t mean avoiding difficult decisions; it means making them better.
Artificial intelligence is already being used in recruitment processes, performance evaluations, and even dismissal decisions in some multinational companies. Do you foresee this type of risk arriving in Costa Rica, and how prepared is the current labor framework to litigate a dismissal decided—or influenced—by an algorithm?
Artificial intelligence will profoundly transform talent management, but the main legal challenge will not be the technology itself, but rather how organizations choose to use it.
Although the current labor framework was not specifically designed to regulate algorithmic decisions, it does contain legal principles that allow for their evaluation. Labor law has always required that decisions affecting individuals be reasonable, explainable, and proportionate. Artificial intelligence does not eliminate this requirement. A company can use technological tools to support selection, evaluation, or management processes, but it cannot transfer its responsibility to an algorithm. Furthermore, since artificial intelligence systems depend on the processing of information, their use in the workplace will require a more precise definition of workers’ rights to the protection of their personal data.
There’s one idea I consider fundamental: an algorithm shouldn’t just reflect a company’s efficiency; it should also reflect its values. If an organization declares that transparency, equal opportunities, and respect for people are part of its culture, those principles must be present in the way it designs and monitors its technological tools.
One of the main risks arises when a company uses systems whose operation it doesn’t understand or assumes that a decision is objective and fair simply because it was generated by a machine. From my experience as a judge, the essential question will always be: can the organization clearly and reasonably explain, and prove, how it arrived at that decision? Therefore, companies must move toward AI governance models with internal and external controls, human oversight, and clearly defined responsibilities. Technology can be an extraordinary tool, but it should never become a mechanism for diluting accountability.
Looking ahead to the next three to five years, what are Godínez Legal’s specific priorities—team growth, new industries, regional presence—and how different does that projection look compared to the firm you founded 25 years ago?
When I founded Godínez Legal 25 years ago, the vision was to build a firm specializing exclusively in Labor Law, convinced that in-depth knowledge could generate distinct value for clients. That essence remains, but the business environment has changed. Today, companies face challenges related to labor compliance, sustainability, digital transformation, artificial intelligence, new forms of work organization, and strategic talent management.
Our vision combines several objectives: strengthening our position as a highly specialized boutique labor law firm, developing the professional careers of our lawyers, supporting companies with a regional perspective, and consolidating our own internal processes. We are in a process of institutional strengthening that includes professional development for the team, accreditation of processes under international quality standards, responsible incorporation of artificial intelligence, and strengthening our cybersecurity.
There is consistency between what we recommend to our clients and how we manage our own organization. If we promote cultures of compliance and robust processes, we must apply them internally. Twenty-five years ago, we built a specialized boutique firm. The next step is to consolidate a specialized institution.
Godínez Legal owes much of its prestige to a single founding partner. How are you envisioning the firm’s continuity beyond your own career?
I believe a professional firm reaches its true maturity when it transforms individual knowledge into institutional capacity. From the outset, I was clear that Godínez Legal should not depend solely on one person. My name is associated with the firm because it represents a history and a track record, but the true value of a professional organization lies in its team, the culture it cultivates, and the trust it builds with its clients.
For this reason, we have been developing a planned process of institutional strengthening for several years. The continuity of a specialized firm cannot be improvised; it requires identifying the capabilities the organization will need in the future, developing talent proactively, and enabling new generations to progressively assume greater responsibilities. We have a professional development plan for our lawyers, designed to strengthen their technical skills, develop leadership, and prepare them to assume positions of greater responsibility within the firm and in their relationships with our clients. Part of this process involves supporting their academic development through postgraduate programs and creating the conditions for each professional to advance within the organization.
A transition of this nature takes time. It’s not an immediate process; it’s a planned, multi-year undertaking, requiring support, clear objectives, and a shared vision. My experience as a judge, academic, and consultant has taught me that knowledge not shared is lost. A sustainable organization must transform accumulated experience into collective assets. The next generation of lawyers at Godínez Legal should not be a replica of the founder. They must bring new perspectives and new tools, while maintaining the principles that have guided the firm: specialization, technical rigor, independence of judgment, and commitment to the client. A founder’s true legacy lies not in their name remaining associated with an organization, but in having built an institution capable of generating value even beyond their own involvement.
With over two decades of experience in labor law from the judiciary, academia, and private practice, what is the most costly mistake you see employers make in Costa Rica today, and why does it remain so common despite the fact that the law hasn’t changed on this point?
After so many years analyzing labor relations from different perspectives, I believe that the most costly mistake I still observe in some employers is making important labor decisions without first building the foundations that will make them sustainable.
Many organizations face situations that require swift action: a termination, a reorganization, a disciplinary measure, or a change in the compensation structure. The problem arises when urgency outweighs the quality of analysis. A sound employment decision requires understanding the facts, reviewing background information, assessing risks, analyzing proportionality, considering available documentation, and anticipating how that decision might be reviewed by a court.
My experience as a judge profoundly influenced my approach to problem-solving. When reviewing a case, I didn’t just look at the final decision, but also at the process that led to it. Today, as a business consultant, I apply that same approach. I always try to answer one question: If this decision were reviewed by a court in a few years, would the organization have the necessary information to explain why it acted that way?
I believe this mistake remains common because some organizations still perceive labor law as a reactive function, solely linked to conflict. However, more mature companies understand that labor law is also a business management tool. Prevention doesn’t mean avoiding difficult decisions. It means making better ones.
After 25 years of professional practice, my conclusion is that companies don’t just need legal answers; they need support to make sound decisions. A well-designed labor law decision protects the company, but it also protects the relationship of trust with the people who are part of it. The value of labor law advice lies not only in solving the immediate problem, but in delivering a decision that can withstand the test of time, internal scrutiny, and, if necessary, review by a court or administrative body.
The logic that Godínez Legal applies to its clients—anticipating before reacting—is the same logic it applies to its own firm. When considering the continuity of Godínez Legal beyond its own tenure, it already has a concrete plan in place: professional development, process accreditation, and internal governance, all aimed at ensuring the firm maintains its high level of technical expertise regardless of which generation leads it.
This same trajectory is the foundation of what sets it apart from larger, full-service firms. Godínez doesn’t compete by offering just another labor law practice among several areas: it builds upon twenty-five years of exclusive specialization, backed by its experience in the judiciary and its work as an ILO consultant in six countries in the region. This depth, more than the firm’s size, is what companies seek when a labor matter becomes particularly sensitive or strategic.
