The default assumption many firms make when engaging a LATAM professional is that the arrangement is equivalent to hiring a US freelancer. The person is independent, they invoice for their services, the firm pays them, end of story.
That assumption creates two categories of risk.
Misclassification risk in the contractor's country
Labor laws across Latin America vary significantly by country, but most jurisdictions apply tests to determine whether a working relationship constitutes employment rather than independent contracting. Those tests look at factors like exclusivity, regularity of work, degree of direction and control, and duration of the engagement. A drafter who works full time for a single US firm, follows that firm's schedule, works in their tools, and takes direction from their project lead looks, under most LATAM labor codes, more like an employee than an independent contractor.
If a labor authority in the contractor's country determines the relationship is employment rather than contracting, the firm can be exposed to back-payment of statutory benefits, severance obligations, and penalties under local law. This is not a theoretical risk: labor enforcement has intensified across several LATAM countries in recent years, particularly in Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina, all primary markets for AEC nearshore talent.
No local entity, no local standing
Without a local entity or an EOR, a US firm engaging a LATAM professional directly has no formal legal standing in that country. If a dispute arises, whether over compensation, termination, or IP ownership, the firm has no recognized legal relationship to enforce or defend in the local jurisdiction. The EOR provides that standing on the firm's behalf.