It is difficult to provide a definitive answer to why a lawyer may have advised against accepting a continuance in a case without more information about the specific circumstances of the case. However, there are a few possible reasons why a lawyer might advise against accepting a continuance. One possibility is that the lawyer may believe that the continuance would not be in the best interests of the client, either because it would not provide any significant benefit or because it could potentially harm the client's case. For example, if the lawyer believes that the evidence and arguments in the case are strong and that the case is likely to be decided in the client's favor, they may advise against accepting a continuance in order to avoid delaying the resolution of the case.
Another possibility is that the lawyer may have concerns about the opposing party's motives for requesting a continuance. If the lawyer suspects that the opposing party is requesting a continuance in order to gain an unfair advantage or to delay the case indefinitely, they may advise against accepting the continuance in order to protect the client's interests.
It is also possible that the lawyer may have concerns about their own ability to effectively represent the client if the case is continued. For example, if the lawyer has other cases or commitments that would prevent them from devoting the necessary time and resources to the case if it is continued, they may advise against accepting the continuance in order to ensure that they can provide the best possible representation for the client. Ultimately, the decision whether to accept a continuance in a case depends on a number of factors, and a lawyer's advice in this regard will depend on their assessment of the specific circumstances of the case.