Senior Manager, Forensics & Litigation

We need to output HTML fragment with sections: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. Only include sections where posting has real specific content. Must not repeat job title. Must not include Job ID etc. Must preserve all substantive info. Remove boilerplate: cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning boilerplate, duplicated lines, application instructions. Also remove legal notice, wage transparency? The instruction says remove cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning boilerplate. The legal notice includes equal opportunity statements etc. Should be removed. Also wage transparency sections likely considered legal? Might be considered boilerplate? The instruction: "Remove cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning boilerplate, duplicated lines, and application instructions." So legal notice includes EEO statements; we should remove them. Wage transparency maybe also legal but it's salary info; we need to include Pay section if posting actually states them. The posting includes salary ranges for Illinois and Virginia. That is specific content about pay. So we should include a Pay section with that info. However we must not include filler like "commensurate with experience". The salary ranges are specific numbers, so we can include. Benefits: posting mentions benefits: "Benefits are eligibility-based and could include group health plan benefits, 401(K), bonuses, profit-sharing contributions, flexible time off, and parental leave." Also earlier: "What We Offer Our robust total rewards program and flexible work environment reflect our commitment to people, careers, and well-being-empowering our team to grow and thrive while delivering exceptional service." So we have benefits info. So include Benefits section. Schedule: Not mentioned explicitly. No schedule info. So we should not include Schedule section. Skills: Not explicitly listed as a separate section; but we could infer from responsibilities. However we should only include Skills if posting has real specific content for it. The posting does not have a dedicated Skills bullet list. Might be covered under Requirements/Qualifications. Better not to create a Skills section unless there is explicit list. So omit Skills. Qualifications: There are Minimum Qualifications and Preferred Qualifications. So we can have a Qualifications section with subheadings? The instruction: use

for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). So we can have a Qualifications heading and inside we can put

or

• for the qualifications. We should preserve all substantive info: Bachelor's degree, 7+ years experience, proficiency in MS Office, experience leading large-scale fraud etc., experience supporting post-closing disputes, M&A litigation, complex commercial litigation, damages, lost profits, purchase price adjustments, earnouts, etc., demonstrated experience developing client relationships, generating opportunities, supporting proposals, contributing to growth. Preferred: Master's degree, experience providing expert testimony, supporting testifying expert, preparing matters for deposition etc., current and valid professional business credentials (list), experience with business valuation disputes (the posting has a weird list of commas). We'll include that as is. Requirements: Might be overlapping with Qualifications. But we can treat Requirements as the core duties? Actually the posting has "What You Will Do" which is responsibilities. So we can have Responsibilities section with that content. Requirements maybe refer to minimum qualifications? But we already have Qualifications. To avoid duplication, we could put Requirements as the list of responsibilities? However the instruction says use

  for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). So we need to decide what goes where. The posting includes a description paragraph at start: "Description & Requirements Forensics & Litigation Services at Forvis Mazars provides critical support..." That's like an About the role overview. Then "What You Will Do" is responsibilities. Then "Minimum Qualifications" and "Preferred Qualifications". Then "About Forvis Mazars, LLP" is company overview. Then "What We Offer" is benefits. Then legal notice etc. So we can map: - About the role: the initial description paragraph (maybe also the company overview? But About the role likely the role description). We'll use the first paragraph(s) describing the team and services. - Responsibilities: the "What You Will Do" bullet points (the long list). We'll convert each sentence into

  items. - Requirements: maybe we could put the minimum qualifications here? But we already have Qualifications. To avoid duplication, maybe we treat Requirements as the minimum qualifications and Qualifications as preferred? But the instruction list includes both Requirements and Qualifications as separate possible headings. We need to decide based on content. The posting has Minimum Qualifications and Preferred Qualifications. Could treat Minimum as Requirements, Preferred as Qualifications. That seems logical. So: - Requirements: Minimum Qualifications (Bachelor's, 7+ years, MS Office proficiency, experience leading large-scale fraud etc., experience supporting post-closing disputes etc., demonstrated experience developing client relationships...). - Qualifications: Preferred Qualifications (Master's degree, expert testimony experience, professional credentials, experience with business valuation disputes). We must not repeat content. Ensure we capture all. - Benefits: from "What We Offer" and later benefits list. - Pay: salary ranges for Illinois and Virginia. We must not include duplicated lines. Ensure we don't include legal notice etc. Now craft HTML. Structure:

  About the role

  ...

  Responsibilities

  • ...
  ...

  Requirements

  • ...
  ...

  Qualifications

  • ...
  ...

  Benefits

  • ...
  ...

  Pay

  ...

  We must not add extra sections like Schedule. Now extract content. About the role: The initial paragraph: "Description & Requirements Forensics & Litigation Services at Forvis Mazars provides critical support to clients navigating investigations, complex disputes, and legal proceedings. The team combines deep financial expertise with advanced forensic technology to uncover facts, investigate potential financial irregularities, assess damages, and deliver defensible insights. Services include fraud investigations, litigation consulting, expert witness testimony, and dispute resolution. Professionals in this practice work closely with legal counsel, corporate leadership, and regulatory bodies to address issues such as financial misconduct, business disputes, and economic damages." We can combine into a paragraph. Responsibilities: The "What You Will Do" list. Let's extract each bullet: - Lead complex forensic accounting and litigation engagements from planning through delivery, including defining scope, developing workplans, managing budgets and timelines, coordinating multidisciplinary resources, and communicating progress and findings to clients and counsel. - Direct large-scale internal company investigations involving potential fraud, whistleblower complaints, and other areas of suspected financial misconduct, misappropriation, corruption, or control failures, including records analysis, transaction tracing, investigative interviews, and synthesis of evidence. - Manage SEC, governmental, and other regulatory related matters, working with legal counsel, corporate leadership, audit and special committees, and other stakeholders to respond to inquiries and develop clear, well supported findings. - Lead financial reporting and accounting investigations involving alleged misstatements, restatements, earnings management, revenue recognition, reserves, related-party transactions, technical accounting issues, and internal control deficiencies. - Advise clients and counsel on post-closing disputes and M&A related litigation, including working capital and purchase price adjustments, earnouts, indemnification claims, accounting interpretation disputes, and damages analyses. - Provide complex commercial litigation support by analyzing financial, accounting, and operational records; developing damages and lost-profits models; assessing claims and counterclaims; and preparing defensible analyses for mediation, arbitration, or trial. - Apply advanced forensic accounting, data analytics, and critical-thinking techniques to identify patterns, anomalies, and relevant evidence across large and complex data sets. - Prepare and review workpapers, investigative reports, expert reports, exhibits, and client communications, maintaining rigorous quality control and compliance with professional, legal, and regulatory standards. - Serve as a primary client contact and trusted advisor, translating complex financial findings into clear, practical insights for legal counsel, boards, executives, and other decision makers. - Assist with preparing for and participating in meetings and presentations with regulators, including presenting investigative findings. - Support expert witnesses and counsel through discovery, deposition, mediation, arbitration, and trial preparation; provide expert testimony when appropriate based on experience and credentials. - Mentor and develop team members, delegate work based on experience and skill, provide timely feedback, contribute to performance evaluations, and foster a collaborative and inclusive team environment. - Develop and deepen relationships with law firms, corporate counsel, financial executives, and referral sources to identify new opportunities and expand services with existing clients. - Contribute to practice-building initiatives by leading or supporting proposals, developing thought leadership, participating in industry and professional events, and collaborating across service lines and markets to bring the firm's capabilities to clients. We'll put each as

  . Requirements (Minimum Qualifications): - Bachelor's Degree in Accounting, Finance, Economics, or a related field - 7+ years of experience in forensics & litigation consulting services - Proficiency in Microsoft Office Suite - Experience leading large-scale fraud, internal, financial reporting, or accounting investigations, including matters involving the SEC or other governmental and regulatory bodies. - Experience supporting post-closing disputes, M&A litigation, and complex commercial litigation, including damages, lost profits, purchase price adjustments, earnouts, or related accounting analyses. - Demonstrated experience developing client relationships, generating opportunities, supporting proposals, and contributing to growth of a forensics and litigation practice. We'll put as

  • . Qualifications (Preferred Qualifications): - Master's Degree in Accounting, Finance, Economics, Business, or a related field - Experience providing expert testimony, supporting a testifying expert, or preparing matters for deposition, mediation, arbitration, or trial. - Current and valid professional business credentials, including one or more of the following: CPA, CFA, ABV, ASA, MAFF, CFE, AVA, or CFF. - Experience with business valuation disputes , , , , , , , , , (the posting has a weird list of commas; we need to preserve exactly as posted? It says "Experience with business valuation disputes , , , , , , , , ,". That seems like placeholder commas. Should we include? It's likely a formatting error but it's part of the posting. The instruction: Preserve ALL substantive information; do NOT invent or summarize away detail. So we should include that exact text: "Experience with business valuation disputes , , , , , , , , ,". However that seems nonsensical. But we must preserve. We'll include as is. Benefits: From "What We Offer": "Our robust total rewards program and flexible work environment reflect our commitment to people, careers, and well-being-empowering our team to grow and thrive while delivering exceptional service." And later: "Benefits are eligibility-based and could include group health plan benefits, 401(K), bonuses, profit-sharing contributions, flexible time off, and parental leave." We can combine into a
    with items: robust total rewards program, flexible work environment, group health plan benefits, 401(K), bonuses, profit-sharing contributions, flexible time off, parental leave. But we should not invent; we can keep as prose. Perhaps better to keep as

    with both sentences. However instruction: Use

    • for any list of duties/requirements/benefits. So benefits list should be
      • . We'll extract the list: group health plan benefits, 401(K), bonuses, profit-sharing contributions, flexible time off, parental leave. Also we could include "robust total rewards program" and "flexible work environment" as benefits? They are more like program description. Could include as separate items. But to stay true, we can make list items from the explicit list. The "robust total rewards program and flexible work environment" is a sentence describing benefits;