I like the original sentence and I don’t see any ambiguity in it. More contextual information can make a difference in cases like this, but since you don’t provide it, we can only make assumptions based on the lexical meanings of the words that form the sentence.
We can assume that:
1. Bob is a corporate lawyer because he litigates (conducts lawsuits) and deals with transactions (business agreements).
2. Bob is a businessman who likes to solve his business problems through litigation (with his lawyers) and likes to deal with transactions.
In either case no element suggests the litigation he likes is of a non-business nature so it is understood that both actions litigate and do transactional work involve business. Therefore, I think the original sentence conveys your option 2.
IMO option 1 can only be possible if there is a contextual element that suggests that he likes litigation in general.
As stated by others above you can rephrase this in a number of ways. However, in business writing is better to KISS, so I’d stick to the original sentence. If you still want to make it more precise then I agree with @hawaii_jake simply add both after likes.