Well, if there's some technicality or reason why it wasn't really a bust, and the FAA won't listen, that's what the lawyer is for. If you did it and you know it and are looking for some kind of technicality or loophole, you are going to make things painful. The good part is that most lawyers realize this, they will ask you if you did it, and they will do for the most part what you should have done, which is tell you to tell the FAA your side of the story, but they'll charge you more for it. The next thing the FAA might do if you don't want to discuss it and try to stonewall is request to see your logbooks, which is allowed by regulations. Failure to comply with these things could result in a suspension that can't be stopped, same thing with the 709, and because the FAA is responsible for making sure the pilots out there are competent, they have no way of knowing this because they never learned what/why it happened, a momentary/unique event vs. not qualified. That's what the FAA is trying to figure out here.

If this is handled well by the pilot, it usually won't affect their career, the warnings expire after two years and the inspectors are looking for a positive outcome in terms of what you learned, how you won't do it again, the steps you'll take, etc. For the most part in life, unless something egregious happens, it's usually about how you deal with it, what you learn, etc. If it is egregious, it is more in "uncharted territory" where you may or may not be able to overcome it, but this early in one's career and just an airspace violation, not likely.

Hope this helps.