I'm merely interested in the facts, clapton.
Are saying that Sherman was told that the 2 external law firms had not advised on the 228 issue, but had advised on the 282 and 20AB issue? Can you quote the bit of Sherman's report that makes that distinction?
Further, you must recognise the elephant-sized conflict of interest in the General Counsel of CASA advising on the whether his boss had broken the rules and, if so, how those breaches should be dealt with. His opinion was fatally tainted by that conflict, as was Boys's. Presumably the opinions of external law firms were sought because of that patent conflict. What is not clear is why those external opinions were not sought from all of the same advisers in respect of all 3 issues, but Sherman was told they had.
It may be that the outcome would have been exactly the same if all 3 issues had been referred in exactly the same way and Sherman had been given completely correct information. But that didn't happen. Instead, people started telling fibs suggesting that it had happened. That's the problem, clapton. When people start telling fibs about messes they've created, rather 'fessing up and tidying up, it naturally invites speculation that there's something serious in the mess, rather than the usual and more prosaic explanation that a mistake was made.