RDJ University Conference 2026

On 28 May, RDJ hosted its annual University Conference, bringing together leaders from across Ireland’s higher education sector to explore the key risks and opportunities shaping universities today—from AI and governance to funding, reputation and student-related issues.

Below are the key themes and insights from the day.

1. AI is reshaping universities — and demands a new institutional response

Dr Lollie Mancey’s keynote underscored a central message: AI is no longer optional. It is now a societal and institutional issue, with AI literacy becoming as fundamental as traditional literacy.

Key takeaways:

• AI is moving from a “tool” to changing how we decide what is true. It is not just a technology; it is becoming part of culture.
• We have placed responsibility at the individual level for a systemic problem. We are not preparing students for careers. We are preparing them for uncertainty.
• AI is no longer optional—it is societal, economic and democratic in nature, with AI literacy becoming as fundamental as traditional literacy and central to how knowledge is created and validated.
• There has been rapid adoption of AI without a clear understanding of its appropriate use, creating risk at both institutional and system level. Students are not outsourcing work. They are outsourcing parts of cognition.
• AI is beginning to disrupt traditional graduate pathways, automating entry-level roles and compressing career progression —"if entry-level roles disappear, the university pipeline no longer holds.”
• We are producing AI users faster than we are producing AI thinkers. If thinking becomes optional, what happens to understanding? And if everyone uses the same systems, do we end up thinking the same thoughts?
• Universities have a critical role not just as adopters of AI, but as interrogators of the technology, ensuring it is used responsibly and transparently across the institution.
• In an environment optimised for speed and output, universities play a vital role in preserving depth, critical thinking and meaning. Universities are not observing the future; they are producing it. The question is not whether AI will change higher education. The question is: will higher education shape AI?

Strategic implication:

Universities must move beyond adoption to lead on responsible AI use—embedding literacy, accountability and critical thinking at the core of their mission

2. Universities must redefine their role in the AI age

Building on the keynote and panel discussion led by RDJ Partner Ricky Kelly with Dr Lollie Mancey and John Lonsdale (CEO, CeADAR, Ireland's National Centre for AI), the conversation highlighted the growing gap between the pace of AI development and the ability of institutions to respond effectively.

Key takeaways:

• Universities are under pressure to keep pace with rapid AI advancement, making it increasingly difficult to design and implement effective governance frameworks.
• The emerging regulatory landscape is fragmented, with enforcement under the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill spread across multiple sectoral regulators, and no dedicated oversight body for higher education.
• There is a need to strike the right balance between governance and innovation—overly rigid rules risk becoming quickly outdated in a fast-moving environment.
• Human oversight of high-risk AI systems will be essential, despite the lack of established models or best practice frameworks.
• A culture of “critical mistrust” is required — AI cannot be relied upon at face value. This is particularly evident in the challenge of assessment, where detection tools remain ineffective and reliable evaluation methods are still evolving.
• There are significant opportunities for collaboration between universities and industry, particularly in advancing AI capability and governance approaches.
• Ultimately, AI literacy and institutional accountability were identified as the most pressing priorities for university leaders.

Strategic implication:

Universities must take a proactive and adaptive approach—strengthening governance, embedding AI literacy and fostering collaboration in a rapidly evolving landscape.

3. Funding strategies must align with risk, timing and deliverability

The financing session led by Cian Fenton, Partner in RDJ’s Banking and Finance Team and John Finn, Managing Director at Treasury Solutions, highlighted a complex and evolving funding landscape.

Key takeaways:

• A wide range of funding options exist, including State/EU funding, bank lending, private placements and international capital and the potential for private placements (albeit challenging).
• Income-generating projects (e.g. student accommodation) are more attractive to funders than core infrastructure.
• Delays often arise at security negotiation stage, so important to get ahead of those before or during approval stage.
• Universities should be wary of commencing projects without fully secured funding in place.
• Early identification of constraints (e.g. negative pledges, lender requirements) is critical.
• Treasury policies need to be reviewed regularly.

Strategic implication:

A clear financing policy and early-stage planning are essential to avoid delays and risk exposure.

4. Student matters require careful, flexible application of fair procedures

The session on fair procedures led by Richard Martin, Dispute Resolution Partner at RDJ; Marianne Lonergan, Head of RDJ’s Universities Team; and Joe Jeffers SC reinforced the importance of process.

Key takeaways:

• Courts expect internal remedies to be exhausted before challenges are brought.
• Fair procedures are context-dependent, with greater protections needed where outcomes are serious.
• Universities should err on the side of greater procedural fairness where uncertainty exists.
• Policies should allow for flexibility in complex cases, rather than rigid processes.

Strategic implication:

Robust but adaptable processes are key to managing student issues and mitigating legal risk.

5. Student accommodation is increasingly complex—legally and operationally

This session, led by Finola McCarthy (Partner and Head of RDJ’s Procurement and Construction teams), Evan Collins (Senior Associate, Real Estate) and Michael Quinlan (Partner, Dispute Resolution), highlighted the growing legal, regulatory and operational complexity across the full lifecycle of student accommodation.

Key takeaways:

• Funders require early and comprehensive security over construction documentation.
• Delivery risk is significant—delays carry both financial and reputational consequences.
• New tenancy rules introduce CPI-linked rent controls and stricter compliance obligations.
• Operational detail (e.g. occupancy tracking, rent setting documentation) is critical to maintaining flexibility.
• RTB disputes frequently arise from procedural errors, particularly in termination processes.

Strategic implication:

Universities must adopt a joined-up approach across construction, legal and operational teams.

6. Process—not outcome—is often the biggest risk in investigations

This session, led by David McCarroll (Partner, RDJ Employment team) and Sarah Daly BL, focused on the key principles, practical challenges and best practices in conducting investigations within the university sector.

Key takeaways:

• Poor process is a primary driver of disputes and WRC findings.
• Investigations must be structured, fair and clearly aligned with policy.
• A non-adversarial approach encourages engagement and better outcomes.
• Preliminary reports strengthen process integrity and reduce risk.
• Clear reasoning and evidence-based findings are essential in final reports.

Strategic implication:

Universities should prioritise process design, consistency and documentation in all investigations.

7. Reputation risk is increasing—and more complex than ever

This session, led by Jean Devlin (Partner, Control Risks), Susie Horgan (Founder and Managing Director, Springboard Communications), Diarmaid Gavin (Partner and Head of RDJ’s Corporate and Commercial team), and Marianne Lonergan (Partner and Head of RDJ’s Universities team), explored the evolving reputational landscape facing universities.

Key takeaways:

• Universities are facing a growing range of reputational risks, including rapidly evolving social and political issues, the nature of institutional partnerships, and increasing geopolitical tensions.
• Institutions are under pressure to respond publicly and take positions, making it essential to clearly define and communicate their core values and positioning.
• Scenario planning and horizon scanning are critical, enabling universities to anticipate and respond effectively to potential crises.
• A coordinated approach to communications is essential—consistency, clarity and measured responses are key, particularly in fast-moving or sensitive situations.
• The growing importance of export controls, sanctions and research security requires early identification of risks and clear engagement with regulatory frameworks.
• There is an increasing need to professionalise both physical and digital security, including managing risks to leadership and responding to harmful online activity.

Strategic implication:

Reputation management must be proactive, strategically aligned and embedded across the institution, with clear positioning, strong governance and coordinated communication at its core.

Universities are navigating a period of rapid and profound change. From AI and regulation to funding and reputation, the challenge is not just to respond, but to adapt with clarity and intent. Institutions that combine strong governance with agility and foresight will be best positioned to lead in this evolving landscape.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.