SRA imposed section 43 order after employee admitted altering proof of delivery to conceal late Companies House filing
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has imposed a restriction on a former legal employee after he admitted to misleading his firm and falsifying documents in relation to a client matter.
Ross Wenman, who worked as a Senior Company Secretarial Assistant for Withers Professional Services Limited between May 2021 and December 2024, has been made subject to a section 43 order under the Solicitors Act 1974.
During his employment, Mr Wenman provided services to Withers LLP, a law firm based at Old Bailey in London. The matter arose from work carried out for a client, referred to as client A, where the firm had been instructed to file accounts and supporting documents at Companies House by a deadline of 30 September 2024.
After the deadline passed, the client received overdue notices and contacted the firm for clarification. The firm then asked Mr Wenman to confirm when the documents had been filed. On 7 November 2024, he informed the firm that the deadline had been missed but initially provided information suggesting the documents had been delivered on 1 October 2024.
The following day, Mr Wenman supplied proof of delivery indicating that the documents had been received on that date. However, on 15 November 2024, he admitted that this information was inaccurate. He confirmed that he had in fact posted the documents on 28 October 2024, with delivery taking place on 29 October 2024. He also admitted to altering the proof of delivery to show an earlier date in order to support the incorrect account he had given.
The SRA found that Mr Wenman’s actions were dishonest and that he had misled his employer regarding a client matter. It concluded that such conduct undermined trust and confidence in legal services and made it undesirable for him to be involved in legal practice.
As a result of the section 43 order, Mr Wenman is prohibited from working in any role within a law firm regulated by the SRA, including being employed, remunerated, or holding a managerial or ownership interest, unless prior permission is granted by the regulator.
In reaching its decision, the SRA considered mitigating factors, including Mr Wenman’s cooperation with the investigation and his expression of remorse. Nevertheless, it determined that regulatory action was necessary to protect public trust in the profession.
Mr Wenman has also agreed to pay £600 towards the costs of the SRA’s investigation.