Can an attorney who has entered into a stipulation as to the effect of the stipulation challenge that this is not binding?

Contrary to the majority's position, petitioner's request is not governed by the case of Inniss v. State Bar (1978) 20 Cal.3d 552, 143 Cal.Rptr. 408, 573 P.2d 852. In Inniss, this court remarked that when it is considering an increase in the recommended discipline, it "may relieve the attorney from the binding effect of the stipulation. Ordinarily, however, the stipulated facts may not be contradicted ...." (Id., at [28 Cal.3d 477] p. 555, 143 Cal.Rptr. 408, 573 P.2d 852, second emphasis added.) Thus, Inniss determined only that an attorney who had entered into a stipulation as to acts or omissions which required discipline could not challenge those admissions if this court chose to consider a more severe discipline. Petitioner mounts no such challenge here. He merely requests an opportunity to make available to this court additional testimonial and documentary evidence of circumstances in mitigation of his conduct.