Ross Wenman
Employee
7268745

Decision - Employee-related decision

Outcome: Control of non-qualified staff (Section 43 / Section 99 order)

Outcome date: 11 March 2026

Published date: 20 March 2026

Firm details

Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: Withers LLP

Address(es): 20 Old Bailey, London, EC4M 7AN, England

Firm ID: 352314

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Mr Ross Wenman (Mr Wenman), a former employee of Withers Professional Services Limited who provided employment services to Withers LLP (the Firm), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

1. to the SRA making an order under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (a section 43 order) in relation to Mr Wenman that, from the date of this agreement:
   1. no solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with his practice as a solicitor
   2. no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the solicitor's practice
   3. no recognised body shall employ or remunerate him
   4. no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the business of that body
   5. no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to be a manager of the body
   6. no recognised body or manager or employee of such body shall permit him to have an interest in the body

      except in accordance with the SRA's prior permission

2. to the publication of this agreement
3. he will pay the costs of the investigation of £600.

2. Summary of facts

2.1 Mr Wenman was employed by Withers Professional Services Limited on the basis that he would provide services to Withers LLP. He worked as a Senior Company Secretarial Assistant from 10 May 2021 until 11 December 2024.

2.2 The Firm acted for client A and were instructed to file its accounts and supporting documents at Companies House by the deadline of 30 September 2024.

2.3 Client A received overdue accounts notices and contacted the Firm to query this. The Firm asked Mr Wenman when the relevant documents were filed at Companies House.

2.4 On 7 November 2024, Mr Wenman admitted to the Firm that the filing deadline had been missed as the accounts had been sent after the filing deadline.

2.5 Mr Wenman provided the Firm with the proof of delivery, on 8 November 2024, showing the documents as being delivered to Companies House on 1 October 2024.

2.6 On 15 November 2024, Mr Wenman admitted to the Firm that he had posted the accounts and supporting documents by Royal Mail Special Delivery on 28 October 2024 and they were delivered on 29 October 2024. Mr Wenman admitted that he had altered the proof of delivery documents to show the delivery date as 1 October 2024.

3. Admissions

3.1 Mr Wenman makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts that:

1. He misled the Firm when he said that the accounts and supporting documents for client A were sent on 1 October 2024, when in fact he posted them on 28 October 2024.
2. He altered the proof of delivery documents to mislead the Firm that the accounts and supporting documents had been sent on 1 October 2024.
3. His conduct set out above was dishonest.

4. Why a section 43 order is appropriate

4.1 The SRA’s Enforcement Strategy and its guidance on how it regulates non-authorised persons, sets out its approach to using section 43 orders to control where a non-authorised person can work.

4.2 When considering whether a section 43 order is appropriate in this matter, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Wenman and the following mitigation which he has put forward:

1. he has shown insight and expressed his remorse.
2. he has co-operated with the SRA’s investigation.

4.3 The SRA and Mr Wenman agree that a section 43 order is appropriate because:

1. Mr Wenman is not a solicitor
2. his employment or remuneration at the Firm, a recognised body, via Withers Professional Services Limited which is the main employing and service providing entity to the Firm, means that he was involved in a legal practice.
3. by providing false information to the Firm that he filed the accounts and supporting documents on 1 October 2024, when in fact he posted them on 28 October 2024, and then, altering the proof of delivery documents to fit in with the above false information he had provided, Mr Wenman has occasioned or been party to an act or default in relation to a legal practice. Mr Wenman’s conduct in relation to that act or default makes it undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice.
4. Mr Wenman’s conduct makes it undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice because as an experienced assistant he should have known that he should not mislead colleagues in respect of actions taken on client matters. Such conduct fails to uphold public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.

5. Publication

5.1 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory process. Mr Wenman agrees to the publication of this agreement.

6. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement

6.1 Mr Wenman agrees that he will not deny the admissions made in this agreement or act in any way which is inconsistent with it.

7. Costs

7.1 Mr Wenman agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of £600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.