If you've conspired with someone to let you in, then your claim of authorized access is a sham. The question is whether the employer would have authorized such access, not whether you could successfully suborn a member of the employer's staff.

I don't know why, but there is this persistent misconception that just because you can do something easily it shouldn't be illegal.

It matters with what intent deeds are performed. If you come into my office at my invitation for a social chat, and while I'm visiting the restroom you notice a trade secret lying on my desk and copy it, you've stolen the trade secret but you were entitled to be there. But if you know I have a trade secret and you go into my office without permission, or trick me into admitting you under false pretenses, then you're guilty of criminal trespass as well.

The defendant knew that Korn/Ferry wouldn't want him copying client lists. Just because he used someone else as his man on the inside does not sanitize the unauthorized access. You're essentially applying the principles of money laundering to information and saying it's cool. This is total bullshit. I think you know better and that you would howl like a lonely coyote if anyone pulled the same trick on you.