is narrowly tailored to advance that interest. Id. at 564-65, 100 S.Ct. 2343. To satisfy the first prong of Central Hudson, the State asserts three interests in regulating this activity: (1) protection of the privacy of accident victims and their families from intrusion; (2) protection of accident victims and their families from the emotional stress occasioned by im- wanted solicitation; and (3) protection of the integrity of legal and other professionals, licensed by the state, from unethical practices and loss of public confidence. We accept this showing as one that satisfies the Central Hudson standard, since the Supreme Court has recognized each of these interests as being substantial. See Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. 515 U.S. 618, 624-25, 115 S.Ct. 2371, 132 L.Ed.2d 541 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761, 770, 113
holding that privacy and maintaining ethical standards in statelicensed professions were substantial interests recognizing a broader ethical duty of confidentiality holding that states may regulate all professions concerned with health holding that safety standards regarding the safe design and use of trampolines including astm standards were admissible on the issue of the defendants negligence even though the defendants were unaware of the standards holding that preventing fraud maintaining ethical standards and privacy were substantial interests